Not trying to be argumentative here, but is what they did actually against the rules? I'm not at all familiar with this competition which might be why I'm not quite so worked up about this, so maybe I have misunderstood something. Did the competition really require that they only train on the provided data?
I compare this to my favorite sport, Formula 1 racing. In F1, teams of engineers with nearly unlimited budgets spend an absurd amount of effort doing everything in their power to bend the regulations (the "formula") to squeeze out some extra advantage.
For example, in this past season Ferrari was suddenly outperforming the pack (and their own recent performance) and it was clear something had changed on the car, they had power in places they didn't before. What finally came down is a clarification of the rules around fuel-rate metering, without directly calling out Ferrari. After the clarification, Ferrari power was back where it used to be. Nothing more was said of the matter by the FIA.
What we all _think_ happened is that Ferrari, knowing the fuel rate meters ran at 10kHz, discovered they could pulse their fuel pump so that the low-end of the flow rate cycle happened during that sampling interval. This means they could increase their overall fuel rate beyond what was technically allowed, due to how that technical requirement was being measured on the car (and reported back to the FIA).
Is it in keeping with the spirit of the rules? Of course not! Does it make for an interesting engineering puzzle on top of an already-exciting sport? Sure does!
Clearly I'm in the minority here, but I think this sort of problem-solving approach can be useful. If you're looking to compete against a field of entrants who are all looking for obvious and well-understood approaches to solving the problem at hand, I think sometimes the best solution to stand out is to look where the other teams aren't looking.
The issue is that the entire reason the competition exists is because the company is sponsoring it and putting forward the prize money so that the top performing models can then be put into production, thereby solving some problem the company has. This type of cheating is dishonest and against the spirit of the competition, but it also defeats the entire purpose of the exercise. Simply keeping a lookup table of answers for the data isn't machine learning, and will not generalize into a production system. As stated in the article, without these hacks, he wouldn't have even placed in the top 100.
To use your F1 analogy, this isn't the equivalent of tweaking the cars in whatever way possible is within the rules. This is the equivalent of completely cutting across the grass and bypassing 90% of the track, which is indeed illegal and would get you penalized.
I compare this to my favorite sport, Formula 1 racing. In F1, teams of engineers with nearly unlimited budgets spend an absurd amount of effort doing everything in their power to bend the regulations (the "formula") to squeeze out some extra advantage.
For example, in this past season Ferrari was suddenly outperforming the pack (and their own recent performance) and it was clear something had changed on the car, they had power in places they didn't before. What finally came down is a clarification of the rules around fuel-rate metering, without directly calling out Ferrari. After the clarification, Ferrari power was back where it used to be. Nothing more was said of the matter by the FIA.
What we all _think_ happened is that Ferrari, knowing the fuel rate meters ran at 10kHz, discovered they could pulse their fuel pump so that the low-end of the flow rate cycle happened during that sampling interval. This means they could increase their overall fuel rate beyond what was technically allowed, due to how that technical requirement was being measured on the car (and reported back to the FIA).
Is it in keeping with the spirit of the rules? Of course not! Does it make for an interesting engineering puzzle on top of an already-exciting sport? Sure does!
Clearly I'm in the minority here, but I think this sort of problem-solving approach can be useful. If you're looking to compete against a field of entrants who are all looking for obvious and well-understood approaches to solving the problem at hand, I think sometimes the best solution to stand out is to look where the other teams aren't looking.