> We can also consider the IMO 2025 problems individually. In the Epoch AI newsletter, Greg Burnham combines a subjective analysis with Evan Chen’s MOHS ratings to argue that the first five problems at IMO 2025 were unusually easy and the sixth was unusually hard, so it’s not surprising that the first five problems were exactly the ones solved by these AIs. Though I’m not sure the MOHS scale is rigorous enough to make sense as the x-axis of a bar chart it’s easy to corroborate the high-level story with the official IMO statistics. Based on average scores, this year’s Problem 6 was the fourth hardest and its Problem 3 was by far the easiest of all Problem 3s and 6s since 2000.

In the linked MaxProof paper, in the section "6.3.1. Per-Problem Analysis" it shows the same behavior: 7/7 in the first 5 problems, 0/7 in the last problem.

Crudely, IMO gold medals are awarded to the highest-scoring 1/12 of contestants.1 However, because scores are integers up to 42 and there’s no provision for tiebreaking, it’s possible for a lot of contestants to be tied around the threshold. In that case, either all of them get a gold medal or none do, and the fraction of gold medalists might deviate substantially from 1/12. That’s what happened this year: 46 contestants all won a gold medal by scoring exactly 35 points.

In fact, bizarrely, 35 is the mode of the scores this year; the last time the modal score was a gold medal score was in 1994. And, of course, 35 is the same score claimed by AI systems from Google, OpenAI, and others."

From https://blog.vero.site/post/imo-2025

Anecdata, but it weirdly helped me. Seemed BS for me until I tried.

Maybe because good code is contextual? Sample codes to explain concepts may be simpler than a production ready code. The model may have the capability to do both but can't properly disguished the correct thing to do.

I don't know.

From my POV Google could have released a good B2C LLM before OpenAI, but it would compete with their own Ads business.

For more advanced CSP bypass with extension, you can:

1. Inject JS code into any webpage with a CSP.

2. Create an event listener for your content script and reacting according to it.

3. Use your content script to communicate with the background script.

4. Use the background script to communicate with any website, including blocked websites by the CSP.

Basically, any website <-> extension content script <-> background script <-> any website.

One professor of mine commented that most French engineers are better mathematicians than most mathematicians in Brazil.

It is the opposite of what the linked article mentions that was happening in Weierstrass' time.

It also has two screens and its own stand, I use it as my travel machine.

For people with native or fluent English, for sure. For the others, probably not.

> When everyone else can, why can’t you just enjoy a drink or two, and be part of the group for a few hours?

Apart from the hearing loss, maybe you are an introvert and just prefer more quiet enviroments. Nothing is wrong with that, there is no need to feel you must go out because of peer pressure, and no need to wait until you have a hearing loss to have an excuse to stop going. It is better to find other people who are introverts than eternally trying to adapt to be something you may not want.

> At some point it stops making sense, having done it repeatedly with the same outcome.

If you find purpose in doing something, then you don't do it because of different outcomes. Maybe you didn't find purporse in going out from the beginning?

(Ideally) short code snippets, discussion about what it solves, reviews possibly with other alternatives, discussions about tradeoffs...

Just like you, I think IQ is very trainable. It is very common to have questions about logic, which may be represented as Venn Diagrams, or visual questions with multiple parts, each one following a logic...

I say that as someone who "started" with 110 QI according to a Orkut online test, and grinded my way to 145 according to different online tests.

For that reason people who learned how to prove things in math are naturally going to have a higher IQ: they learned how to solve some questions in the test.