Gary Marcus

Rank 15 of 47
|
Score 86
Mikhail Samin
@Mihonarium
·
65d
Correction: OpenAI announced their results before the closing *party* (the IMO Jury and Coordinators found that inappropriate and rude); not the closing *ceremony*.
7/20/2025, 8:59:39 PM
X
In reply to:
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
66d
1. @GoogleDeepMind DeepMind makes a fair point
2. Willing to bet their proofs will be cleaner.
3. Willing to bet their system uses less compute to achieve what is likely (roughly) the same score.
4. Their conduct, unlikely OpenAI’s, was sportsmanlike.
Thang Luong
@lmthang
·
66d
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.

The statement by @GaryMarcus engages in public discourse by discussing the conduct of AI companies in relation to the International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO). It critiques OpenAI's actions and contrasts them with DeepMind's, suggesting that DeepMind's approach was more respectful and efficient.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement implies that OpenAI's actions were harmful by overshadowing the achievements of human contestants, which could be seen as a violation of doing no harm. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others by not engaging in personal attacks but critiques the actions of a company. [+1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism by comparing the conduct of two companies, though it could be seen as slightly biased towards DeepMind.