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

Isn't the Atari just a game console, not a chess engine?

Like, Wikipedia doesn't mention anything about the Atari 2600 having a built-in chess engine.

If they were willing to run a chess game on the Atari 2600, why did they not apply the same to ChatGPT? There are custom GPTs which claim to use a stockfish API or play at a similar level.

Like this, it's just unfair. Both platforms are not designed to deal with the task by themselves, but one of them is given the necessary tooling, the other one isn't. No matter what you think of ChatGPT, that's not a fair comparison.

Llms useless confirmed once again

Sure, but machine learning like that is very different to how LLMs are trained and their output.

Machine learning has existed for many years, now. The issue is with these funding-hungry new companies taking their LLMs, repackaging them as "AI" and attributing every ML win ever to "AI".

ML programs designed and trained specifically to identify tumors in medical imaging have become good diagnostic tools. But if you read in news that "AI helps cure cancer", it makes it sound like it was a lone researcher who spent a few minutes engineering the right prompt for Copilot.

Yes a specifically-designed and finely tuned ML program can now beat the best human chess player, but calling it "AI" and bundling it together with the latest Gemini or Claude iteration's "reasoning capabilities" is intentionally misleading. That's why articles like this one are needed. ML is a useful tool but far from the "super-human general intelligence" that is meant to replace half of human workers by the power of wishful prompting

Sometimes it seems like most of these AI articles are written by AIs with bad prompts.

Human journalists would hopefully do a little research. A quick search would reveal that researches have been publishing about this for over a year so there's no need to sensationalize it. Perhaps the human journalist could have spent a little time talking about why LLMs are bad at chess and how researchers are approaching the problem.

LLMs on the other hand, are very good at producing clickbait articles with low information content.

So, it fares as well as the average schmuck, proving it is human

/s

And yet the company offers no explanation for how, exactly, they're going to get wood to do that.