71–80 of 361 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t get to 1400 like that. The amount of moves it has to literally remember is stupendous.
It doesn't remember exact moves, it remembers patterns of moves and continues those. That is why it so easily makes illegal moves, because the patterns doesn't have anything to do with board state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That kinda defeats the purpose. Of course you can use AlphaGo, but the question here is – can a generative AI teach itself to play chess (and do a million other similar generic tasks) when given no specific training for it.
Honest questions, Isn't it very likely chess games were part of the training data? If so, chess sequences seem like an amazing matched filter of sorts. It doesn't seem surprising that it can guess a next move. Is it teaching itself anything here? Is the model being updated in any way? Or are you talking more generally, looking into the future sort of statement?
Why not just introduce AlphaGo as an API that can be used by chatGPT? So every time you want to do a this type of gaming, you just send a request. I mean, chatGPT sends a request to AlphaGo, but as a user you don't know actually what's happening. But in the background, it happens really fast, so it's just like you are chatting with chatGPT, but using much, much powerful tool to do this kind of things.
That kinda defeats the purpose. Of course you can use AlphaGo, but the question here is – can a generative AI teach itself to play chess (and do a million other similar generic tasks) when given no specific training for it.
This has bigger ramifications too: if GPT4 learns how to use RPCs effectively, it can do accurate complex mathematical computations and simulations, do IoT/home automation tasks, and even control heavy machinery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have evidence right here that patterns of moves leads to 1400. To me this is evidence that 1400 level play is very rigid and mostly relies on defined openings and strategies, making it easy for an LLM to find similar games and win using standard continuations. Just like grammar the patterns are too hard for humans to see and encode, but LLMs can encode pretty complex patterns. Domains that are easy to encode as gr…
At what point can we just say that understanding “patterns of moves” is understanding chess? It seems you suggest there is more to it, but maybe I am mistaken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mostly it didn't make illegal moves though, since illegal moves mean resignation and it won more than it lost. Making 60 legal moves in a row in one game would be the coincidence of the century unless it had some knowledge of the rules of chess.
It's a probabilistic text model. If it has a 99% probability of generating an acceptable "next" thing to say, that means it would have a 50/50 chance of generating 60 legal moves in a row, which doesn't seem all that coincidental.
Most likely it has seen a similar sequence of moves in its training set. There are numerous chess sites with databases displayed in the form of web pages with millions of games in them. If it had any understanding of chess, it would never play an illegal move. It's not surprising that given a sequence of algebraic notation it can regurgitate the next move in a similar sequence of algebraic notation.
> Most likely it has seen a similar sequence of moves in its training set. Is this a joke making fun of the common way people dismiss other ChatGPT successes? This makes no sense with respect to chess, because every game is unique, and playing a move from a different game in a new game is nonsensical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most likely it has seen a similar sequence of moves in its training set. Wouldn't we expect a much higher rate of illegal moves if that was the case?
If there was an actual understanding of chess at a 1400 level we wouldn't expect any illegal moves.
> I decided to interpret that as ChatGPT flipping the table and saying “this game is impossible, I literally cannot conceive of how to win without breaking the rules of chess.”
Kind of sounds like anthropomorphization, but more likely the author just papering over the glaring shortcomings to produce a compelling blog post.
It also sounds like the illegal moves were rather frequent. The 61-legal-move game sounded like an impressive outlier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't remember exact moves, it remembers patterns of moves and continues those. That is why it so easily makes illegal moves, because the patterns doesn't have anything to do with board state.
but that's literally what most chess players do anyway?
ChatGPT does the pattern matching part, but not the logical part.
It may then reach superhuman level in any task simpler than chess which is enough to destroy many human jobs.
EDIT: From the article: "With this prompt ChatGPT almost always plays fully legal games." Relax: we're still far from that.