[jvanderbot]

Yeah, it's like bringing a ~bike~ motorcycle to your marathon. But if you can get away with it, there will always be people doing it.

Imagine the shitshow that gaming would be without any kind of anti-cheat measures, and that's the state of competitive programming.

[integralid]

Why is that strange? Competitive programming, as the name suggests, is about competing. If the rules allow that, not using LLM is actually more like running tour de France.

If the rules don't allow that and yet people do then well, you need online qualifiers and then onsite finals to pick the real winners. Which was already necessary, because there are many other ways to cheat (like having more people than allowed in the team).

[jvanderbot]

I'm a bit surprised you can honestly believe that a competition of humans isn't somehow different if allowed to use solution-generators. Like using a calculator in an arithmetic competition. Really?

It's not much different than outlawing performance enhancing drugs. Or aimbots in competitive gaming. The point is to see what the limits of human performance are.

If an alien race came along and said "you will all die unless you beat us in the IEEE programming competition", I would be all for LLM use. Like if they challenged us to Go, I think we'd probably / certainly use AI. Or chess - yeah, we'd be dumb to not use game solvers for this.

But that's not in the spirit of the competition if it's University of Michigan's use of Claude vs MIT's use of Claude vs ....

Imagine if the word "competition" meant "anything goes" automatically.