←back to thread

696 points crescit_eundo | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.203s | source
Show context
swiftcoder ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
Kiro ◴[] No.42146152[source]
That's something completely different than what the OP suggests and would be a scandal if true (i.e. gpt-3.5-turbo-instruct actually using something else behind the scenes).
replies(3): >>42146324 #>>42147204 #>>42151029 #
1. cruffle_duffle ◴[] No.42151029[source]
If they came out and said it, I don’t see the problem. LLM’s aren’t the solution for a wide range of problems. They are a new tool but not everything is a nail.

I mean it already hands off a wide range of tasks to python… this would be no different.