4 ms·
I’m adjacent to some people who do AoC competitively and it’s clear many of the top 10 and maybe 1/2 of the top 100 this year were heavily LLM assisted or wholl
by zaptheimpaler 2y ago
I’m adjacent to some people who do AoC competitively and it’s clear many of the top 10 and maybe 1/2 of the top 100 this year were heavily LLM assisted or wholly done by LLMs in a loop. They won first place on many days. It was disappointing to the community that people cheated and went against the community’s wishes but it’s clear LLMs can do much better than described here
- davidclark 2y agoI’d like the same article topic but from the person who did Day 1 pt1 in 4s and pt2 in 5s (9s total time).
- rhubarbtree 2y agoNo, that means it's clear that LLM-assisted coding can do better than described here. Which implies humans are adding a lot.
- NitpickLawyer 2y agoTo be fair, there's probably not a lot that "humans" add when the solution is solved in 4 and 5 seconds respectively. That's clearly 100% automated. Most humans can't even read the problem in that timeframes. A better implication would be that proper use of LLMs implies more than OP did here (proper prompting, looping the answer w/ a code check, etc.)
- zaptheimpaler 2y agoI think you're trying to dunk on me without actually knowing much about the matter. You can look at the leaderboard times and the github repos too. They are fully automated to fetch input, prompt LLMs and submit the answer within 10 seconds.
- rhubarbtree 2y agoSome of them, yes.