[lovich]

No fucking shit, I paraphrased Anthropic's comments as

> do better than we have publicly admitted most of humanity can do, and we may deign to interview you

If you think telling someone that after passing a test that 99.999% of humanity cannot pass, that they _may_ get an interview, you are being snarky/condescending.

[retsibsi]

That's not how paraphrasing works. They probably intentionally held back from guaranteeing an interview, for various reasons. One that seems obvious to me is that with the bar set at "Claude Opus 4.5's best performance at launch", it's plausible that someone could meet it by feeding the problem into an LLM. If a bunch of people do that, they won't want to waste time interviewing them all.

[Nevermark]

Or honest?

You may want to consider the distribution and quantity of replies before stating that you WILL do something that might just waste more people’s time or not be practical.

The classy thing to do would be responding to every qualifying submission, even if it’s just to thank everyone and let some people know the field was very competitive if an interview won’t be happening.

[YetAnotherNick]

So I like these public challenges, but as someone who set some public questions, ask any company who ran any public contest for their opinion. The pool is filled with scammers who either bought the solutions through sites like Chegg or sometimes even just stackoverflow.

[lovich]

Ok, so they have a reason to be condescending in your mind.

Does that change the fact that they are condescending?

[lechatonnoir]

i think by your logic, they only thing that they do that is condescending is to say that an interview is not guaranteed.

people are mentioning that they do this for a reason, which explains away that behavior, so yeah, it kinda does change the fact of whether they are being condescending.

[andruby]

pedantic: 0.001% of humanity is still 80K humans which might be a lot.

(yes, yes, not every human will try this test)