5 ms·

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 mov

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
      >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. Anything can be called a mistake if you ignore crucial context. I replied to someone else addressing very specific points he/she brought up. >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. A GPT grandmaster would make even less mistakes. That aside because I understand it's not your main point, again this is more nuance than who I was replying to. You have said "does not have as complete an understanding" where the person I replied to said "does not understand the game at all". I feel like you want to argue against a point that was not present in the original discussion I was having. >That feels like you're agreeing with the original poster? The original poster is lacking the nuance to have me agree with him.

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
    >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. Anything can be called a mistake if you ignore crucial context. I replied to someone else addressing very specific points he/she brought up. >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. A GPT grandmaster would make even less mistakes. That aside because I understand it's not your main point, again this is more nuance than who I was replying to. You have said "does not have as complete an understanding" where the person I replied to said "does not understand the game at all". I feel like you want to argue against a point that was not present in the original discussion I was having. >That feels like you're agreeing with the original poster? The original poster is lacking the nuance to have me agree with him.