Comment by scotty79
15 hours ago
Some of the critique is valid but some of it sounds like, "but the rules of the contest are that participants must use less than x joules of energy obtained from cellular respiration and have a singular consciousness"
I don't think anybody thinks AI was competing fair and within the rules that apply to humans. But if the humans were competing on the terms that AI solved those problems on, near-unlimited access to energy, raw compute and data, still very few humans could solve those problems within a reasonable timeframe. It would take me probably months or years to educate myself sufficiently to even have a chance.
I don't think that characterization is fair at all. It's certainly true that you, me, and most humans can't solve these problems with any amount of time or energy. But the problems are specifically written to be at the limit of what the actual high school students who participate can solve in four hours. Letting the actual students taking the test have four days instead of four hours would make a massive difference in their ability to solve them.
Said differently, the students, difficulty of the problems, and time limit are specifically coordinated together, so the amount of joules of energy used to produce a solution is not arbitrary. In the grand scheme of how the tech will improve over time, it seems likely that doesn't matter and the computers will win by any metric soon enough, but Tao is completely correct to point out that you haven't accurately told us what the machines can do today, in July 2025, without telling us ahead of time exactly what rules you are modifying.