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.

Save science for people who understand things.

Does this not strike you as the least bit ironic?

Bingo. If anything what you're finding is the people bitching are the same people that if given a bike wouldn't know how to ride it, which is fair. Some people understand quicker how to use the tools they are given.

Edit - a poor carpenter blames his tools.

This is where MCP comes in. It's a protocol for LLMs to call standard tools. Basically the LLM would figure out the tool to use from the context, then figure out the order of parameters from those the MCP server says is available, send the JSON, and parse the response.

Agreed, which is why it's important to have articles out in the wild that show the shortcomings of AI. If all people read is all the positive crap coming out of companies like OpenAI then they will make stupid decisions.

Hardly surprising. Llms aren't -thinking- they're just shitting out the next token for any given input of tokens.

All AIs are the same. They're just scraping content from GitHub, stackoverflow etc with a bunch of guardrails slapped on to spew out sentences that conform to their training data but there is no intelligence. They're super handy for basic code snippets but anyone using them anything remotely complex or nuanced will regret it.

No, more like "Your marketing team, sales team, the news media at large, and random hype men all insist your orange machine works amazing on any fruit if you know how to use it right. It didn't work my strawberries when I gave it all the help I could, and was outperformed by my 40 year old strawberry machine. Please stop selling the idea it works on all fruit."

This study is specifically a counter to the constant hype that these LLMs will revolutionize absolutely everything, and the constant word choices used in discussion of LLMs that imply they have reasoning capabilities.

It's even worse when AI soaks up some project whose APIs are constantly changing. Try using AI to code against jetty for example and you'll be weeping.

I swear every single article critical of current LLMs is like, "The square got BLASTED by the triangle shape when it completely FAILED to go through the triangle shaped hole."

They’ve been feeding the toddler everybody else’s baby food and claiming they have the right to.

Other studies (not all chess based or against this old chess AI) show similar lackluster results when using reasoning models.

Edit: When comparing reasoning models to existing algorithmic solutions.

It's newsworthy when the sellers of squares are saying that nobody will ever need a triangle again, and the shape-sector of the stock market is hysterically pumping money into companies that make or use squares.

"If we have to ask every time before stealing a little baby food, our morbidly obese toddler cannot survive"

I’ve had success with splitting a function into 2 and planning out an overview, though that’s more like talking to myself

I wouldn’t use it to generate stuff though

You get 2 triangles in a single square mate...

CHECKMATE!

And yet everybody is selling to write code.

The last time I checked, coding was requiring logic.

There are custom GPTs which claim to play at a stockfish level or be literally stockfish under the hood (I assume the former is still the latter just not explicitly). Haven't tested them, but if they work, I'd say yes. An LLM itself will never be able to play chess or do anything similar, unless they outsource that task to another tool that can. And there seem to be GPTs that do exactly that.

As for why we need ChatGPT then when the result comes from Stockfish anyway, it's for the natural language prompts and responses.

It's also from a company claiming they're getting closer to create morphing shape that can match any hole.

The press release where OpenAI said we'd never need chess players again