My understanding is that the ranking of this game is more tied to the timezone you live in (since the ranking depends on the hour when you solve the problem), than anything else. Also it sounds like it is more targeted to people who want to have fun solving the problems than to people who want to compete for ranking. And last, until their rules say otherwise, I'd say using AI to solve the problems is perfectly fair.

It's a game that can be played both casually and competitively, like many other games. But using artificial aids would be frowned upon even in casual contexts. I would be annoyed if my opponent in chess got suggestions from a chess AI or if my opponent in an online shooter was using an aimbot. I play both of these for fun, but a big part of the fun is competing with people of similar skill.

I've never placed in the top 100 of AOC and I never will. But the folks who attempt it would be rightly miffed that someone cheated to get to the top.

And please, don't talk about the effort needed to set up the cheating device. It took a lot of effort to (allegedly) cheat in chess with anal beads, but no one is praising that person.

How is it cheating? You can't cheat at results.

It isn't cheating to dig a ditch with a backhoe any more that it is to use gpt-3 to solve the Advent of Code problems.

It feels like cheating because of asymmetry, it didn't exist before and now it does. They feel like they didn't get a chance to try out the new tool.

Funny thing, I have been accused of "cheating" a couple times in programming. One was in using a Python script to refactor over 4k php pages that had grown by copy pasta over 5 years. Think all code in the company started from the same script, just copied from the previous unrelated task. One week of coding, 15 seconds of runtime and it replaced 6 person-months worth of work.

The other one was when I introduced a bunch of junior programmers to IntelliJ, in how you could navigate the code, rename, refactor, introduce-method. They all understood the new power, half were stoked (because they had access the license) and the other half were pissed, because it was cheating, because a previously 4 hr task, would now be expected to take 45 minutes. The person without the high tech ide is pissed,

First down hill suspension bike vs non, first use of a hydrofoil in competitive sailing. Almost every human endeavor has a before this point and after this point. Maybe this is ours.

Point is, I don't think it cheating until we specifically have human only competitions.

This isn't cheating. There isn't even any rules. The only bans issued have been given to people excessively spamming solution attempts.

I feel in this type of games, your only opponent should really be yourself and I'm not really sure why what other people you don't know are doing should matter.

> I'm not really sure why what other people you don't know are doing should matter

Doesn't that exactly apply to your critisism of other peoples motives to compete with each other? specifically their desire to compete with other humans for fun, as opposed to humans copy and pasting machine output.

I don't mind at all that people are basing the fun they have doing something on what some other people they don't know are doing. I just don't think it's a good idea (for their own happiness), and share it as we are discussing this topic :)

I get the impression that anyone on the leaderboard would be way more interested in getting beat by GPT-3 than actually placing.

The "this isn't cheating" folks do a pretty fine demonstration of why modern humanity is trying hard to wreck itself and will probably succeed. That this is "cheating", violating the spirit of the thing even if it's "technically okay", should be self-evident and obvious, but instead we've got folks actually arguing about it. Sincerely, even.

It's not new, but this, right here, is the thing that's broken in humans.

Public things aren't exclusively for you. Public things are for everyone who uses them.

Geez.

People who place high on the leaderboard already use prewritten libraries specialized for the kinds of problems advent of code asks. Calling out to gpt3 is not much different.

I am not so sure. The ones that I am following, and watching, does not have very elaborate libraries.

Isn’t this just another tool in the toolbox? “Don’t you think about the ethics of using C for this? Some people work really hard on their punchcard mainframe solutions and players like you destroy the concept”

Competitions are defined by their constraints. You are arguing for the doped olympics. A defensible stance but not self evident as default.

Are the people using Python being unfair to those who want to remain competitive in C?

Who cares about the Leaderboard on the easy problems? If the time difference between the 10th solve and the 100th solve is within a minute, the rank is pretty much a coin toss.

Surprised to see this downvoted. Competitive programming is a real thing and people really do want to earn a top 10 spot. This takes up space.

What's the concept that this player destroyed?

What's the boundary?

If GPT-3 was a compiled executable you could run on your laptop, like Python, would it be fine?

> Some people work really hard to get on the leaderboard and players like you destroy the concept.

Yeah. Just like how 'ethics' went out of the window as soon as Stable Diffusion destroyed and cheapened the digital artist straight to zero.

Now it is happening to some extent to parts of programming contests and challenges, ruining the concept as no-one can tell if the code was written by ChatGPT.