Recent AI model progress feels mostly like bullshit

The biggest story in AI was released a few weeks ago but was given little attention: on the recent USAMO, SOTA models scored on average 5% (IIRC, it was some abysmal number). This is despite them supposedly having gotten 50%, 60% etc performance on IMO questions. This massively suggests AI models simply remember the past results, instead of actually solving these questions. I'm incredibly surprised no one mentions this, but it's ridiculous that these companies never tell us what (if any) efforts have been made to remove test data (IMO, ICPC, etc) from train data.

Yes, here's the link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.21934v1

Anecdotally, I've been playing around with o3-mini on undergraduate math questions: it is much better at "plug-and-chug" proofs than GPT-4, but those problems aren't independently interesting, they are explicitly pedagogical. For anything requiring insight, it's either:

1) A very good answer that reveals the LLM has seen the problem before (e.g. naming the theorem, presenting a "standard" proof, using a much more powerful result)

2) A bad answer that looks correct and takes an enormous amount of effort to falsify. (This is the secret sauce of LLM hype.)

I dread undergraduate STEM majors using this thing - I asked it a problem about rotations and spherical geometry, but got back a pile of advanced geometric algebra, when I was looking for "draw a spherical triangle." If I didn't know the answer, I would have been badly confused. See also this real-world example of an LLM leading a recreational mathematician astray: https://xcancel.com/colin_fraser/status/1900655006996390172#...

I will add that in 10 years the field will be intensely criticized for its reliance on multiple-choice benchmarks; it is not surprising or interesting that next-token prediction can game multiple-choice questions!