3 ms·
I maintain that the amount of effort to teach a human to do this vastly outweighs the amount of effort to teach an LLM to do this unless you're deliberately try
by thom 18d ago
I maintain that the amount of effort to teach a human to do this vastly outweighs the amount of effort to teach an LLM to do this unless you're deliberately trying to make them fail. I honestly have no bigger point than that, I just think this isn't a very good thing by which to evaluate LLM capabilities. If there's no argument you'll accept, I am happy to move on.
- foldr 18d agoYou don’t need to teach a human anything except the rules of chess and the details of a particular chess notation. No special skill or training is required to make a sketch of a chess board. Surely there is no chess player who, if confronted with a sequence of chess moves in algebraic notation, would not think to construct a representation of the chess board in order to understand what was going on. > I just think this isn't a very good thing by which to evaluate LLM capabilities I don’t think any single task is a good way to evaluate LLM capabilities, but I don’t see why chess is worse than a lot of other tasks. (Of course it is of no practical consequence whether LLMs can play chess, so if you are just making that point, then yes, I agree.) > If there's no argument you'll accept It’s a little unfair to suggest that I wouldn’t accept any argument whatever for your position just because I haven’t been convinced by your very brief comments so far. I could equally well say the same thing to you!
- deleted 17d ago[deleted]