Would using LLMs to generate new test cases for a question be considered cheating? Can someone please ask mike about this?
# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | tourist | 3856 |
2 | jiangly | 3747 |
3 | orzdevinwang | 3706 |
4 | jqdai0815 | 3682 |
5 | ksun48 | 3591 |
6 | gamegame | 3477 |
7 | Benq | 3468 |
8 | Radewoosh | 3462 |
9 | ecnerwala | 3451 |
10 | heuristica | 3431 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | cry | 167 |
2 | -is-this-fft- | 162 |
3 | Dominater069 | 160 |
4 | Um_nik | 158 |
5 | atcoder_official | 157 |
6 | Qingyu | 156 |
7 | djm03178 | 151 |
7 | adamant | 151 |
9 | luogu_official | 150 |
10 | awoo | 147 |
Would using LLMs to generate new test cases for a question be considered cheating? Can someone please ask mike about this?
Just gave deepseek a 1800 rated question with tutorial explaination it still couldnt generate a correct solution. In my opinion LLMs as of now are just good at solving pretty standard questions anything adhoc/constructive above 1500 with multiple edge cases it starts acting like a retard.
Problem setters should be required to provide proper solution with examples. Not some word salad that barely makes any sense to people rated below 2000.
Have you come across any case where removing macros will speed up the code just enough to get it accepted in tight cases.
Is __int 128 the largest data type in cpp or is there something bigger?
Is there anywhere online where you can compile cpp code really fast compared to your local system?
Name |
---|