>Similarly, it had no idea about the quality (and sometimes legality) of the chess moves it generated. LLMs can play chess just fine. This isn't some inability

>Similarly, it had no idea about the quality (and sometimes legality) of the chess moves it generated. LLMs can play chess just fine. This isn't some inability. You just tested a model that couldn't. GPT-3.5-instruct-turbo plays at about 1800 Elo and makes legal moves consistently well past openings. https://adamkarvonen.github.io/machine_learning/2024/01/03/chess-world-models.html https://adamkarvonen.github.io/machine_learning/2024/01/03/c... >Your snake site is probably a good example. ChatGPT has a bunch of words that it knows are associated with snakes. It's pretty straightforward pattern matching. It doesn't really "understand" what those words mean, except that they have relationships to other words. Lol there is absolutely nothing straightforward about that. It's just so funny, people so ready to relegate anything to "pattern matching" that any supposed difference becomes meaningless.