6 ms·

A lot of the issues are related to the model trying to generate bad/illegal moves. Far better is to do RAG and give it a list of the valid moves given the curr

A lot of the issues are related to the model trying to generate bad/illegal moves. Far better is to do RAG and give it a list of the valid moves given the current board state. Might be able to exploit current computer chess formats to do this more compactly in the prompt. I expect above 2000 elo if you do what I am describing with GPT4.

layman51 3y ago
What does RAG mean? I’m interested because I have tried to play a chess game purely through chat and my experience is that GPT 3 always forgets what is happening in the game and wants to make illegal moves. I guess if there was a format (maybe PGN?) then maybe it could draw on some of its experience.
- esafak 3y ago
  Retrieval Augmented Generation
janalsncm 3y ago
The fact that it’s making illegal moves at all should tell you something. The model may be able to suggest reasonable seeming moves, but it can’t even understand the rules of the game or the current board position. Maybe ChatGPT plays at an 1800 elo but how many 1800 players regularly have a hard time making legal moves? Limiting ChatGPT to legal moves only might help, but it’s ultimately a band aid. I think this is what this article is about.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  3.5-turbo instruct does not have a hard time making legal moves. You many get one illegal move every 300 moves it makes. >The fact that it’s making illegal moves at all should tell you something It tells you nothing because even grandmasters make illegal moves occasionally.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    Grandmasters do not make an illegal move every 300 moves. That is noticeably higher than what we would expect, and it should give us pause when evaluating how 3.5-turbo works and how it's evaluating chess moves. If an 1800 elo human did that, we would find the behavior to be odd and we would question how they learned to play and what their decision-making process was when making moves. "Thing happening commonly in scenario X can also rarely happen in scenario Y, therefore both scenarios are exactly the same" is one of the more annoyingly reductive arguments to have come out of recent AI discussions. You have to actually take frequency into account when you're talking about this stuff, and events occurring at abnormal or atypical frequencies can communicate information about the world.
    - famouswaffles 3y ago
      >Grandmasters do not make an illegal move every 300 moves. Sure. Point is that even the best players will make an illegal move (even if rarely) so a computer that makes an illegal move is not grounds for "does not understand chess" just because it doesn't always make a legal move. He says, "The fact that it’s making illegal moves at all should tell you something." He is literally making the assertion that a single instance of an illegal move means you don't understanding how to play the game. This is trivially proven false. >If an 1800 elo human did that, we would find the behavior to be odd and we would question how they learned to play and what their decision-making process was when making moves. Yes because humans usually learn the rules first then play. If a human learnt chess from watching games, i would not find this behavior odd at all. In fact, i would expect it. Just because you've never seen a move played before does not mean the move is illegal. Moreover, odd as it may be, I still wouldn't call it "struggling to make a legal move". >"Thing happening commonly in scenario X can also rarely happen in scenario Y, therefore both scenarios are exactly the same" is one of the more annoyingly reductive arguments to have come out of recent AI discussions. That wasn't the argument i was making.
      - danShumway 3y ago
        > Sure. Point is that even the best players will make an illegal move (even if rarely) so a computer that makes an illegal move is not grounds for "does not understand chess" just because it doesn't always make a legal move. You're just making the exact same mistake a second time in a row. It is evidence; maybe not full on undeniable 100% proof, but it should shift your priors about how you think about AI, and if it doesn't I would say you're ignoring obvious statistical evidence. An analogy: sometimes cell phone batteries explode. If 1/300 cellphone batteries for a specific brand start exploding, you would not say, "that's not proof of anything, all cell phone batteries have a risk of exploding." You would say, "huh, something is probably going very wrong at the factory." Observing an abnormally high rate of something that should be much more uncommon is actually evidence that something could be going wrong with the underlying process. Observing that a computer has an abnormally high rates of illegal moves is evidence that it struggles to actually understand the rules of chess and that it might be imitating play instead of understanding it. > Yes because humans usually learn the rules first then play. That feels like you're agreeing with the original poster? The computer is imitating play that it's seen before, it's not starting from a baseline understanding of how chess works or why those moves are being made. I would say a human grandmaster who regularly makes illegal moves at a rate of 1/300 does not have as deep or complete of an understanding of the game as other grandmasters who do not make those errors at nearly the same level or frequency. I think that's what most people would say about that person.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  Apparently I massively misremembered the move rate. 5 (potentially less) illegal moves in 8205. So 1 in ~1650. Uh..oops. https://github.com/adamkarvonen/chess_gpt_eval https://github.com/adamkarvonen/chess_gpt_eval

layman51 3y ago

What does RAG mean? I’m interested because I have tried to play a chess game purely through chat and my experience is that GPT 3 always forgets what is happening in the game and wants to make illegal moves. I guess if there was a format (maybe PGN?) then maybe it could draw on some of its experience.

esafak 3y ago
Retrieval Augmented Generation

janalsncm 3y ago

The fact that it’s making illegal moves at all should tell you something. The model may be able to suggest reasonable seeming moves, but it can’t even understand the rules of the game or the current board position. Maybe ChatGPT plays at an 1800 elo but how many 1800 players regularly have a hard time making legal moves? Limiting ChatGPT to legal moves only might help, but it’s ultimately a band aid. I think this is what this article is about.

famouswaffles 3y ago
3.5-turbo instruct does not have a hard time making legal moves. You many get one illegal move every 300 moves it makes. >The fact that it’s making illegal moves at all should tell you something It tells you nothing because even grandmasters make illegal moves occasionally.
- danShumway 3y ago
  Grandmasters do not make an illegal move every 300 moves. That is noticeably higher than what we would expect, and it should give us pause when evaluating how 3.5-turbo works and how it's evaluating chess moves. If an 1800 elo human did that, we would find the behavior to be odd and we would question how they learned to play and what their decision-making process was when making moves. "Thing happening commonly in scenario X can also rarely happen in scenario Y, therefore both scenarios are exactly the same" is one of the more annoyingly reductive arguments to have come out of recent AI discussions. You have to actually take frequency into account when you're talking about this stuff, and events occurring at abnormal or atypical frequencies can communicate information about the world.
  - famouswaffles 3y ago
    >Grandmasters do not make an illegal move every 300 moves. Sure. Point is that even the best players will make an illegal move (even if rarely) so a computer that makes an illegal move is not grounds for "does not understand chess" just because it doesn't always make a legal move. He says, "The fact that it’s making illegal moves at all should tell you something." He is literally making the assertion that a single instance of an illegal move means you don't understanding how to play the game. This is trivially proven false. >If an 1800 elo human did that, we would find the behavior to be odd and we would question how they learned to play and what their decision-making process was when making moves. Yes because humans usually learn the rules first then play. If a human learnt chess from watching games, i would not find this behavior odd at all. In fact, i would expect it. Just because you've never seen a move played before does not mean the move is illegal. Moreover, odd as it may be, I still wouldn't call it "struggling to make a legal move". >"Thing happening commonly in scenario X can also rarely happen in scenario Y, therefore both scenarios are exactly the same" is one of the more annoyingly reductive arguments to have come out of recent AI discussions. That wasn't the argument i was making.
    - danShumway 3y ago
      > Sure. Point is that even the best players will make an illegal move (even if rarely) so a computer that makes an illegal move is not grounds for "does not understand chess" just because it doesn't always make a legal move. You're just making the exact same mistake a second time in a row. It is evidence; maybe not full on undeniable 100% proof, but it should shift your priors about how you think about AI, and if it doesn't I would say you're ignoring obvious statistical evidence. An analogy: sometimes cell phone batteries explode. If 1/300 cellphone batteries for a specific brand start exploding, you would not say, "that's not proof of anything, all cell phone batteries have a risk of exploding." You would say, "huh, something is probably going very wrong at the factory." Observing an abnormally high rate of something that should be much more uncommon is actually evidence that something could be going wrong with the underlying process. Observing that a computer has an abnormally high rates of illegal moves is evidence that it struggles to actually understand the rules of chess and that it might be imitating play instead of understanding it. > Yes because humans usually learn the rules first then play. That feels like you're agreeing with the original poster? The computer is imitating play that it's seen before, it's not starting from a baseline understanding of how chess works or why those moves are being made. I would say a human grandmaster who regularly makes illegal moves at a rate of 1/300 does not have as deep or complete of an understanding of the game as other grandmasters who do not make those errors at nearly the same level or frequency. I think that's what most people would say about that person.
famouswaffles 3y ago
Apparently I massively misremembered the move rate. 5 (potentially less) illegal moves in 8205. So 1 in ~1650. Uh..oops. https://github.com/adamkarvonen/chess_gpt_eval https://github.com/adamkarvonen/chess_gpt_eval