ChatGPT 'got absolutely wrecked' by Atari 2600 in beginner's chess match — OpenAI's newest model bamboozled by 1970s logic
Technology
202
Beiträge
136
Kommentatoren
1
Aufrufe
-
A toddler can pretend to be good at chess but anybody with reasonable expectations knows that they are not.
Plot twist: the toddler has a multi-year marketing push worth tens if not hundreds of millions, which convinced a lot of people who don't know the first thing about chess that it really is very impressive, and all those chess-types are just jealous.
-
Can ChatGPT actually play chess now? Last I checked, it couldn't remember more than 5 moves of history so it wouldn't be able to see the true board state and would make illegal moves, take it's own pieces, materialize pieces out of thin air, etc.
and still lose to stockfish even after conjuring 3 queens out of thin air lol
-
Did the author thinks ChatGPT is in fact an AGI? It's a chatbot. Why would it be good at chess? It's like saying an Atari 2600 running a dedicated chess program can beat Google Maps at chess.
well so much hype has been generated around chatgpt being close to AGI that now it makes sense to ask questions like "can chatgpt prove the Riemann hypothesis"
-
I don't use it for coding. I use it sparingly really, but want to learn to use it more efficiently. Are there any areas in which you think it excels? Are there others that you'd recommend instead?
Use Gemini (2.5) or Claude (3.7 and up). OpenAI is a shitshow
-
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.
Yet even on Lemmy people can't seem to make sense of these terms and are saying things like "LLM's are not AI"
-
Tbf, the article should probably mention the fact that machine learning programs designed to play chess blow everything else out of the water.
I forgot which airline it is but one of the onboard games in the back of a headrest TV was a game called “Beginners Chess” which was notoriously difficult to beat so it was tested against other chess engines and it ranked in like the top five most powerful chess engines ever
-
my favorite thing is to constantly be implementing libraries that don't exist
You're right. That library was removed in ToolName [PriorVersion]. Please try this instead.
*makes up entirely new fictitious library name*
-
I find it really hit and miss. Easy, standard operations are fine but if you have an issue with code you wrote and ask it to fix it, you can forget it
It's the ideal help for people who shouldn't be employed as programmers to start with.
I had to explain hexadecimal to somebody the other day. It's honestly depressing.
-
Can ChatGPT actually play chess now? Last I checked, it couldn't remember more than 5 moves of history so it wouldn't be able to see the true board state and would make illegal moves, take it's own pieces, materialize pieces out of thin air, etc.
It could always play it if you reminded it of the board state every move. Not well, but at least generally legally. And while I know elites can play chess blind, the average person can't, so it was always kind of harsh to hold it to that standard and criticise it not being able to remember more than 5 moves when most people can't do that themselves.
Besides that, it was never designed to play chess. It would be like insulting Watson the Jeopardy bot for losing against the Atari chess bot, it's not what it was designed to do.
-
This post did not contain any content.
LLM are not built for logic.
-
Can ChatGPT actually play chess now? Last I checked, it couldn't remember more than 5 moves of history so it wouldn't be able to see the true board state and would make illegal moves, take it's own pieces, materialize pieces out of thin air, etc.
It can't, but that didn't stop a bunch of gushing articles a while back about how it had an ELO of 2400 and other such nonsense. Turns out you could get it to have an ELO of 2400 under a very very specific set of circumstances, that include correcting it every time it hallucinated pieces or attempted to make illegal moves.
-
ChatGPT has been, hands down, the worst AI coding assistant I've ever used.
It regularly suggests code that doesn't compile or isn't even for the language.
It generally suggests AC of code that is just a copy of the lines I just wrote.
Sometimes it likes to suggest setting the same property like 5 times.
It is absolute garbage and I do not recommend it to anyone.
That's because it doesn't know what it's saying. It's just blathering out each word as what it estimates to be the likely next word given past examples in its training data. It's a statistics calculator. It's marginally better than just smashing the auto fill on your cell repeatedly. It's literally dumber than a parrot.
-
It's not important. You said AI isn't being marketed to be able to do everything. I said yes it is. That's it.
My point is people aren't expecting AGI. People have already tried them and understand what the general capabilities are. Businesses today even more. I don't think exaggerating the capabilities is such an overarching issue, that anyone could call the whole thing a scam.
-
I find it really hit and miss. Easy, standard operations are fine but if you have an issue with code you wrote and ask it to fix it, you can forget it
I like tab coding, writing small blocks of code that it thinks I need. Its On point almost all the time. This speeds me up.
-
Plot twist: the toddler has a multi-year marketing push worth tens if not hundreds of millions, which convinced a lot of people who don't know the first thing about chess that it really is very impressive, and all those chess-types are just jealous.
Have you tried feeding the toddler gallons of baby-food? Maybe then it can play chess
-
That's because it doesn't know what it's saying. It's just blathering out each word as what it estimates to be the likely next word given past examples in its training data. It's a statistics calculator. It's marginally better than just smashing the auto fill on your cell repeatedly. It's literally dumber than a parrot.
Parrots are actually intelligent though.
-
I agree with your general statement, but in theory since all ChatGPT does is regurgitate information back and a lot of chess is memorization of historical games and types, it might actually perform well. No, it can't think, but it can remember everything so at some point that might tip the results in it's favor.
I mean it may be possible but the complexity would be so many orders of magnitude greater. It'd be like learning chess by just memorizing all the moves great players made but without any context or understanding of the underlying strategy.
-
Articles like this are good because it exposes the flaws with the ai and that it can't be trusted with complex multi step tasks.
Helps people see that think AI is close to a human that its not and its missing critical functionality
The problem is though that this perpetuates the idea that ChatGPT is actually an AI.
-
In all fairness. Machine learning in chess engines is actually pretty strong.
AlphaZero was developed by the artificial intelligence and research company DeepMind, which was acquired by Google. It is a computer program that reached a virtually unthinkable level of play using only reinforcement learning and self-play in order to train its neural networks. In other words, it was only given the rules of the game and then played against itself many millions of times (44 million games in the first nine hours, according to DeepMind).
AlphaZero - Chess Engines
Learn all about the AlphaZero chess program. Everything you need to know about AlphaZero, including what it is, why it is important, and more!
Chess.com (www.chess.com)
Oh absolutely you can apply machine learning to game strategy. But you can't expect a generalized chatbot to do well at strategic decision making for a specific game.
-
You're so fucking silly. You gonna study cell theory to see how long you should keep vegetables in your fridge? Go home. Save science for people who understand things.
Save science for people who understand things.
Does this not strike you as the least bit ironic?
