I suppose it's an interesting experiment, but it's not that surprising that a word prediction machine can't play chess.

Because people want to feel superior because they don't know how to use a ChatBot can count the number of "r"s in the word "strawberry", lol

A strange game. How about a nice game of Global Thermonuclear War?

I wasn't aware of that either, now I'm kinda curious to try to find it in my 512 Atari 2600 ROMs archive..

I'm often impressed at how good chatGPT is at generating text, but I'll admit it's hilariously terrible at chess. It loves to manifest pieces out of thin air, or make absurd illegal moves, like jumping its king halfway across the board and claiming checkmate

Prepare to be delighted. Full disclosure, my Atari isn't hooked up and also I don't have the Video Chess cart even if it was, so this was fetched from Google Images.

Those are some funky looking knights lol

Yeah, just because I can't count the number of r's in the word strawberry doesn't mean I shouldn't be put in charge of the US nuclear arsenal!

They used ChatGPT 4o, instead of using o1 or o3.

Obviously it was going to fail.

AI including ChatGPT is being marketed as super awesome at everything, which is why that and similar AI is being forced into absolutely everything and being sold as a replacement for people.

Something marketed as AGI should be treated as AGI when proving it isn't AGI.

Most people do. It's just called AI in the media everywhere and marketing works. I think online folks forget that something as simple as getting a Lemmy account by yourself puts you into the top quintile of tech literacy.

Next, pit ChatGPT against 1K ZX Chess in a ZX81.

Never seen a snake/horse hybrid before?

No thank you. The only winning move is not to play

Here you go (online emulator): https://www.retrogames.cz/play_716-Atari2600.php

I think that’s generally the point is most people thing chat GPT is this sentient thing that knows everything and… no.

This isn't the strength of gpt-o4 the model has been optimised for tool use as an agent. That's why its so good at image gen relative to other models it uses tools to construct an image piece by piece similar to a human. Also probably poor system prompting. A LLM is not a universal thinking machine its a a universal process machine. An LLM understands the process and uses tools to accomplish the process hence its strengths in writing code (especially as an agent).

Its similar to how a monkey is infinitely better at remembering a sequence of numbers than a human ever could but is totally incapable of even comprehending writing down numbers.

Are either of those marketed as powerful AI?

Neither of those things are marketed as being artificially intelligent.

Not to help the AI companies, but why don't they program them to look up math programs and outsource chess to other programs when they're asked for that stuff? It's obvious they're shit at it, why do they answer anyway? It's because they're programmed by know-it-all programmers, isn't it.