upvote

points

by WhitneyLand9 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby Certhas2 hours ago|
next
[-]
Good science, properly digested and presented takes time.

The idea that anything other than a breathless blog post about the latest model snapshot is useless is really poisonous to proper debate on AI issues

reply
upvoteby paimapi8 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
so prove it! get a public repo out there, have it play against some open source engines

also I think the operative letter in AGI is the G - and if the G is short for 'variably competent savant-like hyperfocus on certain kinds of software coding and not any other general skill' then its not really G at all, is it?

reply
upvoteby BobbyJo7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I suck at chess. Are you saying I can't be intelligent?
reply
upvoteby nmehner3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
If you read all chess tutorials, strategy documentation and game archives on the internet and then would still suck at chess: yes.
reply
upvoteby brindleth23 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Declarative knowledge is not the same as procedural knowledge. You can read as many chess tutorials, strategy documentation and game archives as you like, they won't make you good at chess until you actually start practicing chess.
reply
upvoteby paimapi6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
is that what I'm saying? or am I talking about AGI? perhaps there's some irony here to be explored when it comes to basic reading comprehension gaps
reply
upvoteby jibal2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That's a polite way to put it. :-)
reply
upvoteby carodgers7 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> Claude Fable would destroy any human at chess by coding a strong enough engine on the fly.

A bash script can clone and build stockfish, feed in human moves, and reply. By your standard, this bash script would "destroy any human at chess."

Are you interested in assessing the intelligence of the model, or the intelligence of the tools the model can use?

reply
upvoteby nimbleal2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Maybe practically it doesn’t matter? Perhaps AGI is not the model but the model plus everything it’s got access to. If we’re modelling intelligence in the way we seem to have to to have any coherent definition of AGI, it seems to me <model + everything it can access> is always going to be more “intelligent” than <model> alone.
reply
upvoteby Planktonne3 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
That would mean we should consider any human with coding knowledge a chess grandmaster, which is obviously not the case.
reply
upvoteby manquer9 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> People who are good at it rely more on experience and deep domain expertise

People are good are 1900 or 2100 above and the top ones who spend decades in the field i.e. deep expertise are well in the 2200-2700 range.

A 1100 player is none of these things, they are purely relying on strategic reasoning there is a good chance they cannot name a single opening or articulate clearly why a move was appropriate. 1100 is quite low bar.

reply
upvoteby svachalek6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
1100 at online speed chess or something, could be. I'm not that deep in the chess world but everyone I know that can make 1100 in official rating can name a dozen openings and most of the known tactics, and is pretty good at applying at least one opening.
reply
upvoteby orwin1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
1100 lichess/chess.com does not represent real elo. I'm around 1400 online, I would still be unranked in the real world. The fact that I easily beat any model publicly available is not a great look for AGI.
reply
upvoteby tovej1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
1100 is literally below the ELO you get by default as a beginner.
reply
upvoteby what8 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> Claude Fable would destroy any human at chess by coding a strong enough engine on the fly.

Delusional, but then Claude fable also isn’t beating any human at chess, the engine is.

reply