The purpose of the project is learning. The author believes that avoiding GPT will help you learn more effectively and offers that as upfront guidance. In this case, “avoid using GPT” isn’t an ethical directive but simply a learning recommendation. The value of that advice isn’t tied to which tools were used to create the question set.
This is decent for what it is. Some of the problems are pretty open ended which has pros and cons, but that is very different from leetcode, which has very specific data and test cases.
For example, implement linear regression but the example solution uses a random number generator without a fixed seed. It’s fine, reproducibility isn’t the point, but leetcode problems are more structured.
In leetcode they usually don’t tell you exactly what data structure you must use, only that it must pass certain test cases. By analogy this might not tell you which architecture to use but require that it passes certain eval metrics.
15 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 39.3 ms ] threadI mean...this entire project appears to be mostly GPT-generated?
For example, implement linear regression but the example solution uses a random number generator without a fixed seed. It’s fine, reproducibility isn’t the point, but leetcode problems are more structured.
In leetcode they usually don’t tell you exactly what data structure you must use, only that it must pass certain test cases. By analogy this might not tell you which architecture to use but require that it passes certain eval metrics.