If one program gives off feelings, shouldn’t be the whole provider be considered suspicious?
Personally, it makes me reconsider everything connected. Is NeuroIPS’ entry bar so low or so gameable? Is OP/CG paying an icky provider? How Efficient is that?
In fact, shouldn’t there be some documentation about the expectations / results of Coefficient Giving funding Algoverse? CG’s website doesn’t return anything. Neither does Google.
The more I (try to) look into this, the worse it gets.
I have been getting increasingly active towards understanding some of the programs mentioned, with a view to get into one (or some) of them. Most recently I looked at Algoverse. I was surprised to see it it’s basically a pay-to-play program, mostly targeting high-schoolers, where for ~$3k one is given a ~70% probability of publishing at NeuroIPS workshops. It even had unflattering coverage in The Guardian [1]. To me it sounds like college admissions prep industry extending into research credentials, and I can’t see how that will improve the quality of NeuroIPS and others.
I’m new to the AI field, so I wonder how much of the off feelings I get are just a different research culture, younger field (??), etc. But this seems a shade too far, and the inclusion on this list makes me wonder about the rest.
And yet, Algoverse does boast about getting their people into frontier labs. So I would love some context: is pay-to-play a thing in AI research? I haven’t noticed other programs in the list working in the same way.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/dec/06/ai-research-papers
Regarding the “rounding error”: if I’m counting right, just in the 2025 ER NeurIPS workshop you’re listed as co-author for 10 of 223 papers; there might be more, since the Algoverse rules say it’s optional to list you as an author. That’s 4.5%, hardly a rounding error. Isn’t it awkward to agree that something is a problem that should be fixed… while turning it into a business?
Regarding the The Guardian article: I would love to know more about those reasons why it’s misleading. Thank you for offering.