Comment by letmetweakit 3 days ago
Man, those people using LLMs in competitive programming ... where's the fun in that? I don't get people for whom it's just about winning, I wish everyone would just have some basic form of dignity and respect.
Yeah. I was happy to see this called out in their /about
> Should I use AI to solve Advent of Code puzzles? No. If you send a friend to the gym on your behalf, would you expect to get stronger? Advent of Code puzzles are designed to be interesting for humans to solve - no consideration is made for whether AI can or cannot solve a puzzle. If you want practice prompting an AI, there are almost certainly better exercises elsewhere designed with that in mind.
> I don't get people for whom it's just about winning, I wish everyone would just have some basic form of dignity and respect.
reminds me of something I read in "I’m a high schooler. AI is demolishing my education." [0,1] emphasis added:
> During my sophomore year, I participated in my school’s debate team. I was excited to have a space outside the classroom where creativity, critical thinking, and intellectual rigor were valued and sharpened. I love the rush of building arguments from scratch. ChatGPT was released back in 2022, when I was a freshman, but the debate team weathered that first year without being overly influenced by the technology—at least as far as I could tell. But soon, AI took hold there as well. Many students avoided the technology and still stand against it, but it was impossible to ignore what we saw at competitions: chatbots being used for research and to construct arguments between rounds.
high school debate used to be an extracurricular thing students could do for fun. now they're using chatbots in order to generate arguments that the students can just regurgitate.
the end state of this seems like a variation on Dead Internet Theory - Team A is arguing the "pro" side of some issue, Team B is arguing the "con" side, but it's just an LLM generating talking points for both sides and the humans acting as mouthpieces. it still looks like a "debate" to an outside observer, but all the critical thinking has been stripped away.
0: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/09/high-...
> high school debate used to be an extracurricular thing students could do for fun.
High school debate has been ruthless for a long time, even before AI. There has been a rise in the use of techniques designed to abuse the rules and derail arguments for several years. In some regions, debates have become more about teams leveraging the rules and technicalities against their opponents than organically trying to debate a subject.
It sucks that the fun is being sucked out of debate, but I guess a silver lining is that the abuse of these tactics helps everyone understand that winning debates isn't about being correct, it's about being a good debater. And a similar principle can be applied to the application of law and public policy as well.
Yeah, it's like bringing a ~bike~ motorcycle to your marathon. But if you can get away with it, there will always be people doing it.
Imagine the shitshow that gaming would be without any kind of anti-cheat measures, and that's the state of competitive programming.
Why is that strange? Competitive programming, as the name suggests, is about competing. If the rules allow that, not using LLM is actually more like running tour de France.
If the rules don't allow that and yet people do then well, you need online qualifiers and then onsite finals to pick the real winners. Which was already necessary, because there are many other ways to cheat (like having more people than allowed in the team).
I'm a bit surprised you can honestly believe that a competition of humans isn't somehow different if allowed to use solution-generators. Like using a calculator in an arithmetic competition. Really?
It's not much different than outlawing performance enhancing drugs. Or aimbots in competitive gaming. The point is to see what the limits of human performance are.
If an alien race came along and said "you will all die unless you beat us in the IEEE programming competition", I would be all for LLM use. Like if they challenged us to Go, I think we'd probably / certainly use AI. Or chess - yeah, we'd be dumb to not use game solvers for this.
But that's not in the spirit of the competition if it's University of Michigan's use of Claude vs MIT's use of Claude vs ....
Imagine if the word "competition" meant "anything goes" automatically.
It's a different kind of fun. Just like doing math problems on paper can be fun, or writing code to do the math can be fun, or getting AI to write the code to do the math can be fun.
They're just different types of fun. The problem is if one type of fun is ruined by another.
It can be a matter of values from your upbringing or immediate environment. There are plenty of places where they value the results, not the journey, and they think that people who avoid cheating are chumps. Think about that: you are in a situation where you just want to do things for fun but everyone around you will disrespect you for not taking the easy way out.
Weirdly I feel lot more accepting of LLMs in this type of environment than in making actual products. Point is doing things fast and correct enough. So in someways LLM is just one more tool.
With products I want actual correctness. And not something thrown away.
Given what I understand about the nature of competitive programming competitions, using an LLM seems kind of like using a calculator in an arithmetic competition (if such a thing existed) or a dictionary in a spelling bee.
I feel like it’s more like using an electronic dictionary in a spelling bee that already allowed you to use a paper dictionary. All it really does is demonstrate that the format isn’t suited to be a competition in the first place.
Which is why I think it’s great they dropped the competitive part and have just made it an advent calendar. Much better that way.
These contests are about memorizing common patterns and banging out code quickly. Outsourcing that to an LLM defeats the point. You can say it's a stupid contest format, and that's fine.
(I did a couple of these in college, though we didn't practice outside of competition so we weren't especially good at it.)
I’m a very casual gamer but even I run into obvious cheaters in any popular online game all the time.
Cheating is rampant anywhere there’s an online competition. The cheaters don’t care about respecting others, they get a thrill out of getting a lot of points against other people who are trying to compete.
Even in the real world, my runner friends always have stories about people getting caught cutting trails and all of the lengths their running organizations have to go through now to catch cheaters because it’s so common.
The thing about cheaters in a large competition is that it doesn’t take many to crowd out the leaderboard, because the leaderboard is where they get selected out. If there are 1000 teams competing and only 1% cheat, that 1% could still fill the top 10.