2 ms·
That would mean we should consider any human with coding knowledge a chess grandmaster, which is obviously not the case.
by Planktonne 10d ago
That would mean we should consider any human with coding knowledge a chess grandmaster, which is obviously not the case.
- nimbleal 10d agoMy points is more that, while we have a strong intuition about where, as an entity, a human's boundaries are (i.e. where the person begins and ends), philosophically it' not immediately obvious that the analogy applies to the a model in the same way. Why should that be the line drawn that says this is the "thing" and this other stuff is external to the thing? It feels somewhat arbitrary. Of course this is a difficult question with humans too, hence my reliance on intuition above. We don't have the same cultural/biological framework to fall back on with AI.
- thinkharderdev 10d agoI think all this debate about whether an LLM can write (or download) a chess engine is sort of missing the point. For basically any economically valuable work there is no equivalent of a chess engine for it. If there were we wouldn't need humans or AI to begin with.
- empath75 10d agoIf the goal is merely to "win at chess", then yes, an LLM using stockfish is better than any human alone at performing the task. When you are talking about what AI agents are capable of doing, there is no such thing as "cheating". They are as capable as the tools they can use effectively. The entire history of human civilization was driven by effectively using tools to achieve goals.
- Planktonne 10d agoBut then the human should also get Stockfish, and we're back at a stalemate.