3 ms·
I’m pretty sure you can write a simple tree search based program that plays better than 90% of humans, sheerly by crunching numbers quickly. I’m sure you wouldn
by xrisk 3y ago
I’m pretty sure you can write a simple tree search based program that plays better than 90% of humans, sheerly by crunching numbers quickly. I’m sure you wouldn’t claim that that program “understands” chess in the way a human does.
Of course it’s a different question as to how exactly do humans understand chess.
I personally don’t believe humans have some sort of “special” intelligence, whatever we do must be computable and therefore doable by a computer. It’s just that todays LLMs don’t seem to be it.
- johnthewise 3y agoSure, that wouldn't be impressive if you wrote tree search for chess. However, if you wrote a program that doesn't do any search and still plays well, that'd be impressive. I don't understand your claim that LLMs playing chess is anything sort of understanding. related: https://parrotchess.com/ https://parrotchess.com/
- xrisk 3y agoHow do you know there’s no search involved?
- Jensson 3y agoIt does more illegal moves the more you deviate from standard chess openings and positions and becomes unable to play at some point. If it did a tree search based on chess rules that wouldn't happen. If it encoded a lot of chess openings and some tiny ad hoc logic around those then that is exactly what we would expect.
- golol 3y agoThis is not true anymore. It has been discovered that gpt-3.5-instruct when prompeted with purely PGN notation.playes at >1700 Elo and makes no/little illegal moves.