←back to thread

Something weird is happening with LLMs and chess

(dynomight.substack.com)
688 points crescit_eundo | 2 comments | 14 Nov 24 17:05 UTC | HN request time: 0.496s | source
Show context
swiftcoder ◴[15 Nov 24 07:57 UTC] No.42144784[source]▶
I feel like the article neglects one obvious possibility: that OpenAI decided that chess was a benchmark worth "winning", special-cases chess within gpt-3.5-turbo-instruct, and then neglected to add that special-case to follow-up models since it wasn't generating sustained press coverage.
replies(8): >>42145306 #>>42145352 #>>42145619 #>>42145811 #>>42145883 #>>42146777 #>>42148148 #>>42151081 #
scott_w ◴[15 Nov 24 11:10 UTC] No.42145811[source]▶
I suspect the same thing. Rather than LLMs “learning to play chess,” they “learnt” to recognise a chess game and hand over instructions to a chess engine. If that’s the case, I don’t feel impressed at all.
replies(5): >>42146086 #>>42146152 #>>42146383 #>>42146415 #>>42156785 #
gamerDude ◴[15 Nov 24 12:43 UTC] No.42146383[source]▶
This is exactly what I feel AI needs. A manager AI that then hands off things to specialized more deterministic algorithms/machines.
replies(4): >>42146397 #>>42147292 #>>42150449 #>>42152158 #
1. spiderfarmer ◴[15 Nov 24 14:35 UTC] No.42147292[source]▶
Multi Agent LLM's are already a thing.
replies(1): >>42148751 #
2. nine_k ◴[15 Nov 24 17:09 UTC] No.42148751[source]▶
Somehow they're not in the limelight, and lack a well-known open-source runner implementation (like llama.cpp).

Given the potential, they should be winning hands down; where's that?