[ekojs]

> Btw as an aside, we didn’t announce on Friday because we respected the IMO Board's original request that all AI labs share their results only after the official results had been verified by independent experts & the students had rightly received the acclamation they deserved

> We've now been given permission to share our results and are pleased to have been part of the inaugural cohort to have our model results officially graded and certified by IMO coordinators and experts, receiving the first official gold-level performance grading for an AI system!

From https://x.com/demishassabis/status/1947337620226240803

Was OpenAI simply not coordinating with the IMO Board then?

[thegeomaster]

Yes, there have been multiple (very big) hints dropped by various people that they had no official cooperation.

[osti]

I think this is them not being confident enough before the event, so they don't wanna be shown a worse result than competitors. By being private they can obviously not publish anything if it didn't work out.

[esafak]

They shot themselves in the foot by not showing the confidence that Google did.

[ml-anon]

As not-so-subtly hinted at by Terry Tao.

Its a great way to do PR but its a garbage way to to science.

[osti]

True, but openai definitely isn't trying to do public research on science, they are all about money now.

[ml-anon]

Thats not a contentious statement. Its still a pathetic way to behave at a kids competition no less.

[pphysch]

This reminds me of when OpenAI made a splash (ages ago now) by beating the world's best Dota 2 teams using a RL model.

...Except they had to substantially bend the rules of the game (limiting the hero pool, completely changing/omitting certain mechanics) to pull this off. So they ended up beating some human Dota pros at a psuedo-Dota custom game, which was still impressive, but a very much watered-down result beneath the marketing hype.

It does seem like Money+Attention outweigh Science+Transparency at OpenAI, and this has always been the case.

[NitpickLawyer]

Limiting the hero pool was fair I'd say. If you can prove RL works on one hero, it's fairly certain it would work on other heroes. All of them at once? Maybe run into problems. But anyway you'd need orders of magnitude more compute so I'd say that was fair game.

[npinsker]

It's not even close to the same game as Dota. Limiting the hero (and item) pool so drastically locks off many strategies and counters. It's a bit hard to explain if you haven't played, but full Dota has many more tools and much more creativity than the reduced version on display. The behavior does not evidently "scale up", in the same way that the current SotA of AI art and writing won't evidently replace top-level humans.

I'd never say it's impossible, but the job wasn't finished yet.

[pphysch]

That's akin to saying it's okay to remove Knights, or castling, or en passant from chess because they have a complicated movement mechanic that the AI can't handle as well.

Hero drafting and strategy is a major aspect of competitive Dota 2.

[dmitrygr]

> Was OpenAI simply not coordinating with the IMO Board then?

You are still surprised by sama@'s asinineness? You must be new here.

[antonvs]

When your goal is to control as much of the world's money as possible, preferably all of it, then everyone is your enemy, including high school students.

[dmitrygr]

How dare those high school students use their brains to compete with ChatGPT and deny the shareholders their value?

[MisterPea]

I am still surprised many people trust him. The board's (justified) decision to fire him was so awfully executed that it lead to him having even more slack