Trendaavat aiheet
#
Bonk Eco continues to show strength amid $USELESS rally
#
Pump.fun to raise $1B token sale, traders speculating on airdrop
#
Boop.Fun leading the way with a new launchpad on Solana.
We might be heading into a plot twist in the OpenAI vs. DeepMind IMO saga.
Just saw a post from Joseph Myers (involved in the Math Olympiad since 1992): the IMO committee reportedly asked AI labs not to publish results until 7 days after the closing ceremony — out of respect for human contestants (see my post yesterday) and likely to allow time for proper verification of AI submissions and formats.
According to Joseph, OpenAI didn’t collaborate with the IMO to test their model, and none of the 91 official IMO coordinators were involved in grading its solutions. Meanwhile, it seems DeepMind is following the rules and patiently waiting their turn.
For context:
The IMO has 6 problems, each worth 7 points. This year’s gold cutoff is 35 points. Even a small deduction could knock OpenAI down to silver. And from my read of their writeups, some parts might raise questions — and possibly cost points.
Terence Tao also pointed out that while the problems stay the same, testing formats matter. A student who wouldn’t get a bronze under standard conditions might strike gold with a modified setup — which raises real questions about what “solving the IMO” means for AI.
Next week might get spicy. Stay tuned.
20.7. klo 03.15
DeepMind got a gold medal at the IMO on Friday afternoon. But they had to wait for marketing to approve the tweet — until Monday.
@OpenAI shared theirs first at 1am on Saturday and stole the spotlight.
In this game, speed > bureaucracy. Miss the moment, lose the narrative.
@swierk They found 3 former IMO medalists not official IMO coordinators: “For each problem, three former IMO medalists independently graded the model’s submitted proof, with scores finalized after unanimous consensus.“
19.7. klo 15.50
6/N In our evaluation, the model solved 5 of the 6 problems on the 2025 IMO. For each problem, three former IMO medalists independently graded the model’s submitted proof, with scores finalized after unanimous consensus. The model earned 35/42 points in total, enough for gold! 🥇
My previous post about IMO committee’s ask
20.7. klo 05.42
Clarification: I’ve been told by someone at Google that their IMO results are still being verified internally. Once that’s done, they plan to share them officially—curious to see their approach.
Another source mentioned that the IMO committee asked not to publicly discuss AI involvement within a week after the closing ceremony. Things just got a bit more interesting 🧐
@GoogleDeepMind superhuman reasoning team lead @lmthang also raised the question about whether OpenAI would win a gold or silver
20.7. klo 05.42
Clarification: I’ve been told by someone at Google that their IMO results are still being verified internally. Once that’s done, they plan to share them officially—curious to see their approach.
Another source mentioned that the IMO committee asked not to publicly discuss AI involvement within a week after the closing ceremony. Things just got a bit more interesting 🧐
@GoogleDeepMind superhuman reasoning team lead @lmthang who built AlphaGeometry also raised the question about whether OpenAI would win a gold or silver medal
23 tuntia sitten
Yes, there is an official marking guideline from the IMO organizers which is not available externally. Without the evaluation based on that guideline, no medal claim can be made. With one point deducted, it is a Silver, not Gold.
@swierk Yeah there are more and more questions raised by math and AI people
20 tuntia sitten
@GoogleDeepMind superhuman reasoning team lead @lmthang who built AlphaGeometry also raised the question about whether OpenAI would win a gold or silver medal
87,39K
Johtavat
Rankkaus
Suosikit