It doesn't say anywhere that Gemini used any of those things at ICPC, or that it used more real-world time than the humans.

Also, who cares? It's a self contained non-human system that could solve an ICPC problem it hasn't seen before on its own, which hasn't been achieved before.

If there was a savant human contestant with photographic memory who could remember every previous ICPC problem verbatim and can think really fast you wouldn't say they're cheating, just that they're really smart. Same here.

If there was a man behind the curtain that was somehow making this not an AI achievement then you would have a point, but there isn't.

▲

raspasov 5 days ago | parent [-]

I think "hasn't seen before" is a bit of an overstatement. Sure, the problem is new in the literal sense that it does exist verbatim elsewhere, but arguably, any competition problem is hardly novel: they are all some permutation of problems that exist and have been solved before: pathfinding, optimization, etc. I don't think anyone is pretending to break new scientific ground in 5 hours.

▲

chpatrick 4 days ago | parent [-]

It's not new scientific ground but a machine beating a challenging computer science problem unassisted is a big deal. If they can do that then there are a lot of other challenging things they can do.

▲

raspasov 4 days ago | parent [-]

Like what exactly? As far as I can tell, the drug discovery is fizzling out, so it's not talked about much. Toxicity, for one, is a big problem, and the AI is not going to tell you whether the new drug it just concocted is suitable for humans or not.

Small model solves an easy problem; big model solves a challenging problem. I wouldn't call those problems; they are more like invented puzzles. Perfect match for the AI marketing department to "solve".

	▲	chpatrick 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Whatever you say.