The problem with programming challenges is that if you win a programming challenge, you probably could've spent the same time doing a very similar thing but produced something of much greater value (money, software that people will actually use, research that will actually be built on). The unfortunate consequence of this is that you aren't likely to see many rationalists entering these competitions without strong motivation, and a little prestige and publicity isn't enough.
Also, building a functioning team of programmers out of loosely-committed geographically-dispersed acquaintances is ridiculously hard, and if you could do it, you wouldn't waste that power on a game.
you probably could've spent the same time doing a very similar thing but produced something of much greater value (money, software that people will actually use
What, specifically, would you suggest?
research that will actually be built on
This is one desired outcome of these AI challenges.
building a functioning team of programmers out of loosely-committed geographically-dispersed acquaintances is ridiculously hard, and if you could do it, you wouldn't waste that power on a game.
No, this is completely arse-about. The "game" should be used as a medium to develop cooperation skills.
Late last year a LessWrong team was being mooted for the Google AI challenge (http://aichallenge.org/; http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/8ay/ai_challenge_ants/). Sadly, after a brief burst of activity, no "official" LessWrong entry appeared (AFAICT, and please let me know if I am mistaken). The best individual effort from this site's regulars (AFAICT) came from lavalamp, who finished around #300.
This is a pity. This was an opportunity to achieve, or at least have a go at, a bunch of worthwhile things, including development of methods of cooperation between site members, gathering positive publicity, and yes, even advancing the understanding of AI related issues.
So - how can things be improved for the next AI challenge (which I think is about 6 months away)?