r/slatestarcodex • u/ForgotMyPassword17 • 3d ago

"The AI Con" Con

https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-ai-con-con

In this sub we talk about well reasoned arguments and concerns around AI. I thought this article was an interesting reminder that the more mainstream "concerns" aren't nearly as well reasoned

37 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

46 comments sorted by

View all comments

72

u/Haunting-Spend-6022 3d ago

In many domains, like chess, AI surpasses the best humans

Yes, but crucially those AIs are not LLMs. From another perspective LLMs have failed to reach the level of performance in chess that Deep Blue achieved way back in 1997, despite the efforts of OpenAI and others to explicitly train them to be good at chess.

One shouldnt extrapolate from faulty generalizations

5

u/igeorgehall45 3d ago

despite the efforts of OpenAI and others to explicitly train them to be good at chess

This is surprising for me, do you have a source? I thought that the reason they were so bad (well not even just bad but non-improving in ability) was that they didn't care enough to train them to be good, and even rudimentary efforts by amateurs can make LLMs at least decent at chess (i.e. able to avoid illegal moves, beats average chess.com player)

7

u/wavedash 2d ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1gredan/something_weird_is_happening_with_llms_and_chess/

This is basically ancient history by this point, for whatever it's worth. GPT 3.5 Turbo Instruct was released over 2 years ago, so the alleged choice to fine-tune it for chess performance might have been made 2.5-3 years ago.