Re:OpenAI claims Gold-medal performance at IMO 2025
by johnecheck on Saturday July 19, 2025 @09:48AM
(#44615459)
The key bit here is whether the LLM doing the cherry picking had knowledge of the solution. If it didn't, this is a meaningful result. That's why I'd like more info, but I fear OpenAI is going to try to keep things under wraps.
Re:OpenAI claims Gold-medal performance at IMO 2025
by diggan on Saturday July 19, 2025 @10:04AM
(#44615564)
> If it didn't
We kind of have to assume it didn't right? Otherwise bragging about the results makes zero sense and would be outright misleading.
Re:OpenAI claims Gold-medal performance at IMO 2025
by samat on Saturday July 19, 2025 @10:53AM
(#44615955)
> would be outright misleading
why would not they? what are the incentives not to?
Re:OpenAI claims Gold-medal performance at IMO 2025
by blibble on Saturday July 19, 2025 @10:50AM
(#44615923)
openai have been caught doing exactly this before
Re:OpenAI claims Gold-medal performance at IMO 2025
by aluminum96 on Saturday July 19, 2025 @01:09PM
(#44617281)
Why do people keep making up controversial claims like this? There is no evidence at all to this effect
Re:OpenAI claims Gold-medal performance at IMO 2025
by blibble on Saturday July 19, 2025 @01:59PM
(#44617773)
it was widely covered in the press earlier in the year
Re:OpenAI claims Gold-medal performance at IMO 2025
by helloplanets on Saturday July 19, 2025 @04:44PM
(#44619205)
Source?
Re:OpenAI claims Gold-medal performance at IMO 2025
by lucianbr on Saturday July 19, 2025 @04:11PM
(#44618927)
Corporations mislead to make money all the damn time.
Re:OpenAI claims Gold-medal performance at IMO 2025
by Dilettante_ on Saturday July 19, 2025 @04:35PM
(#44619144)
"You really think someone would do that, just go on the internet and tell lies?"
Re:OpenAI claims Gold-medal performance at IMO 2025
by aluminum96 on Saturday July 19, 2025 @01:08PM
(#44617272)
Mark Chen posted that the system was locked before the contest. [1] It would obviously be crazy cheating to give verifiers a solution to the problem!
[1] https://x.com/markchen90/status/1946573740986257614?s=46&t=H...
That entirely depends on who did the cherry picking. If the LLM had 10000 attempts and each time a human had to falsify it, this story means absolutely nothing. If the LLM itself did the cherry picking, then this is just akin to a human solving a hard problem. Attempting solutions and falsifying them until the desired result is achieved. Just that the LLM scales with compute, while humans operate only sequentially.