Not necessarily that AI is marketed as a competitive board game player, but that AI is marketed as intelligence. This helps illustrate how clueless it really is.
There are plenty of geniuses out there who aren’t great at board games. Using a tool not fit for task is more of an issue with the person using the wrong tool than an issue with the tool itself.
I do get where you’re coming from though. There are definitely people who don’t understand why a ChatBot wouldn’t be good at chess.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
on 11 Jun 12:24
collapse
Do you expect rocket scientists to be good at chess?
Intelligence doesn’t mean it’s blanket smart. This is entirely on individual people for this asinine assumption. It’s never been marketed that way, so why in this singular case is the definition suddenly different? The general public understands this isn’t some be all end all. This assumptive attitude that Lemmy has is fucking weird.
I would expect anyone claiming to be intelligent to be able to beat an Atari 2600 set to its very lowest difficulty. This is a task on par with counting the number of Rs in the word 'strawberry', something the intelligent ChatGPT also famously cannot do.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
on 11 Jun 16:56
nextcollapse
Do you think being good at chess is equivalent to intelligence…?
Those are also vastly different tasks, a toddler can count, while they likely can’t play chess.
You have a very strange notion of what “intelligence” means.
A toddler untrained at counting and untrained at chess would be good at neither. Same goes for adults, you are untrained in rocket physics, so you won’t be good at it either. Why are you holding an ai at some weird ungodly bar that doesn’t apply to anything else? No one’s claimed it to be good at these things. Adults who can’t swim and go in water drown, why? Because they weren’t taught. Notice a pattern yet?
First try. I did make a few mistakes, but the 2600 made more.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world
on 11 Jun 17:27
collapse
The general public understands this isn’t some be all end all.
I disagree.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
on 11 Jun 17:30
collapse
Got a link? Because people just think it’s cool, not that it’s gonna be this thing that can do everything.
So there must be some place people are getting this “it can do everything” idea from? It’s more an anti-ai propaganda angle, and that’s prevalent mainly on Lemmy. So a source to back up this “ai can do anything” please.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world
on 11 Jun 17:40
collapse
Tradition dictates that the first claimant bears responsibility for the link.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
on 11 Jun 17:42
collapse
Yep, go up the thread and see which claim was made first ;)
Of course you would try this, since as I already said, it’s propaganda, doesn’t exist. Can’t throw your hat in an argument, then balk when questioned lmfao.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world
on 11 Jun 17:58
collapse
Oh that’s a different person there. You can tell because there’s a different name on top of the comment.
I mean, I don’t have a link to prove that though, so, maybe it is me? Hm. That’s certainly something to think about.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
on 11 Jun 18:00
collapse
Can’t throw your hat in an argument, then balk when questioned lmfao.
You’re joining an argument in the middle, doesn’t matter who said it first.
Also. How do you propose I provide you evidence that’s it’s NOT marketed? The mere lack of it, and the lack of you being able to provide any, should be ample proof for someone wanting to have a civil discourse.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world
on 11 Jun 18:01
collapse
Nuh uh, you are.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
on 11 Jun 18:04
collapse
Yea, in a chain where the first claim was, “ai was marketed as a be all end all”. If you want to support their side with civil discourse, please provide evidence. Because all you seem to be doing here is trolling.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world
on 11 Jun 18:16
collapse
So you admit you have no link for your claim which came first before my claim.
You may again defer to a third party and argue yet another claim was before yours but I say unto thee - wasn’t that claim in reference to one before it? Such a line of inquiry would inevitably lead us to The Original Claim, to which only God or maybe Sam Altman could provide the link to substantiate it.
Therefore, in lieu of petitioning God (or Sam Altman) for a substantiating link to The Original Claim, or the person to whom you were addressing (unless it was me, we’re still checking on that) the onus falls to you to provide a link to substantiate your claim. Failure to do so will go down on your permanent record.
Attempting to badly quote someone on another post: « How can people honestly think a glorified word autocomplete function could be able to understand what is a logarithm? »
You can make external tools available to the LLM and then provide it with instructions for when/how to use them.
So, for example, you’d describe to it that if someone asks it about math or chess, then it should generate JSON text according to a given schema and generate the command text to parametrize a script with it. The script can then e.g. make an API call to Wolfram Alpha or call into Stockfish or whatever.
This isn’t going to be 100% reliable. For example, there’s a decent chance of the LLM fucking up when generating the relatively big JSON you need for describing the entire state of the chessboard, especially with general-purpose LLMs which are configured to introduce some amount of randomness in their output.
But well, in particular, ChatGPT just won’t have the instructions built-in for calling a chess API/program, so for this particular case, it is likely as dumb as auto-complete. It will likely have a math API hooked up, though, so it should be able to calculate a logarithm through such an external tool. Of course, it might still not understand when to use a logarithm, for example.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world
on 10 Jun 00:17
nextcollapse
It probably consumes as much energy as a family house for a day just to come up with that program. That’s what happens.
In fact, I did a Google search and didn’t have any choice but to have an “AI” answer, even if I don’t want it. Here’s what it says:
Each ChatGPT query is estimated to use around 10 times more electricity than a traditional Google search, with a single query consuming approximately 3 watt-hours, compared to 0.3 watt-hours for a Google search. This translates to a daily energy consumption of over half a million kilowatts, equivalent to the power used by 180,000 US households.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 11 Jun 09:46
collapse
Average daily energy consumption for a family in the US is said to be around 30.000 wh per day.
That would be about 10.000 chatgpt queries per day to equal that.
To have more references, average energy consumption of an hour playing a AAA computer game can easily be 600-1000 wh. Depending on the graphic card.
That must be why Google’s greenhouse emissions went up 50% in five years. ChatGPT’s legendary efficiency.
Keep defending those power wasting glorified autocomplete. In no way are we doomed as a species.
We can just continue tu pump more and more into the air. “AI” will surely find a solution for that anyway.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 11 Jun 16:53
collapse
Google is not related with chatgpt. Chatgpt parent company is openAI which is a competitor with google.
A more rational explanation is that technology and digital services on general have been growing and are on the rise. Both because more and more complex services are being offered, and more importantly more people are requesting those services. Whole continents that used not to be cover by digital services are now covered. Generative AI is just a very small part of all that.
The best approach to reduce CO2 emissions is to ask for a reduction in human population. From my point of view is the only rational approach, as with a growing population there’s only two solutions, pollute until we die, or reduce quality of life until life is not worth living. Reducing population allows for fewer people to live better loves without destroying the planet.
Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org
on 10 Jun 15:47
nextcollapse
In other news: My toaster makes better toast than my vacuum.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world
on 11 Jun 17:31
nextcollapse
Your vacuum uses more power than a 150,000-person city just to clean an 8’ square rug?
That does suck.
Heh.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
on 11 Jun 18:06
collapse
If ChatGPT were marketed as a toaster nobody would bat an eye. The reason so many are laughing is because ChatGPT is marketed as a general intelligence tool.
Do you have any OpenAI stuff (ad, interview, presentation…) That claims it’s AGI? Because I’ve never seen such thing, only people hyping it for clicks and ad revenue
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
on 11 Jun 18:45
collapse
I was very careful not to use the term AGI for this reason. General intelligence tool isn’t the same thing. It’s a much weaker claim, yet it’s also a far stronger claim than any purpose-built software. The ambiguity is part of their marketing strategy.
Question remains. Any marketing about it being general intelligence? Not general use, but general intelligence.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
on 11 Jun 21:24
collapse
No, though there’s been plenty of marketing where they claim “we know how to build AGI.”
They have marketed ChatGPT as a general purpose AI from the very beginning, though the question of how to leverage that has remained open.
JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world
on 11 Jun 08:26
nextcollapse
If llms are statistics based, wouldn’t there be many many more losing games than perfectly winning ones? It’s like Dr strange saying ‘this is the only way’.
It’s not even that. It’s not a chess AI or a AGI (which doesn’t exist). It will speak and pretend to play, but has no memory of the exact position of the pieces nor the capability to plan several steps ahead. For ask intended and porpoises, it’s like asking my toddler what’s the time (she always says something that sounds like a time, but doesn’t understand the concept of hours or what the time is)
The fact that somebody posted this on LinkedIn and not only wasn’t shamed out of his job but there are several articles about it is truly infuriating.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 11 Jun 09:44
nextcollapse
My 2€ calculator obliterates a 200.000€ ferrari doing multiplications.
Man all these people coping, I thought chatgpt was supposed to be a generic one able to do anything?
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world
on 11 Jun 17:36
collapse
It depends. Have you used it? If not - Yes! It does do . . . all the things.
If you have used it, I’m sorry that was incorrect. You simply need to pay for the upgraded subscription. Oh, and as a trusted insider now we can let you in on a secret - the next version of this thing is gonna be, like, wow! Boom shanka! Everyone else will be so far behind!
threaded - newest
Is this just because gibbity couldn’t recognize the chess pieces? I’d love to believe this is true otherwise, love my 2600 haha.
At first it blamed its poor performance on the icons used, but then they switched to chess notation and it still failed hard
That is baffling
This is so stupid and pointless…
“Thing not made to solve spesific task fails against thing made for it…”
This is like saying that a really old hand pushed lawn mower is better then a SUV at cutting grass…
SUVs aren’t marketed as grass mowers. LLMs are marketed as AI with all the answers.
I’d be interested in seeing marketing of ChatGPT as a competitive boardgame player. Is there any?
Not necessarily that AI is marketed as a competitive board game player, but that AI is marketed as intelligence. This helps illustrate how clueless it really is.
There are plenty of geniuses out there who aren’t great at board games. Using a tool not fit for task is more of an issue with the person using the wrong tool than an issue with the tool itself.
I do get where you’re coming from though. There are definitely people who don’t understand why a ChatBot wouldn’t be good at chess.
Do you expect rocket scientists to be good at chess?
Intelligence doesn’t mean it’s blanket smart. This is entirely on individual people for this asinine assumption. It’s never been marketed that way, so why in this singular case is the definition suddenly different? The general public understands this isn’t some be all end all. This assumptive attitude that Lemmy has is fucking weird.
I would expect anyone claiming to be intelligent to be able to beat an Atari 2600 set to its very lowest difficulty. This is a task on par with counting the number of Rs in the word 'strawberry', something the intelligent ChatGPT also famously cannot do.
Do you think being good at chess is equivalent to intelligence…?
Those are also vastly different tasks, a toddler can count, while they likely can’t play chess.
You have a very strange notion of what “intelligence” means.
A toddler untrained at counting and untrained at chess would be good at neither. Same goes for adults, you are untrained in rocket physics, so you won’t be good at it either. Why are you holding an ai at some weird ungodly bar that doesn’t apply to anything else? No one’s claimed it to be good at these things. Adults who can’t swim and go in water drown, why? Because they weren’t taught. Notice a pattern yet?
It's the beginner difficulty on very weak hardware. It's designed to be easily beatable even if you don't know much about chess.
Swimming is pretty easy, yet people drown.
It’s actually not that easy. Fire up an emulator and take it for a spin. Like, you won’t get away with obvious mistakes.
First try. I did make a few mistakes, but the 2600 made more.
I disagree.
Got a link? Because people just think it’s cool, not that it’s gonna be this thing that can do everything.
So there must be some place people are getting this “it can do everything” idea from? It’s more an anti-ai propaganda angle, and that’s prevalent mainly on Lemmy. So a source to back up this “ai can do anything” please.
Tradition dictates that the first claimant bears responsibility for the link.
Yep, go up the thread and see which claim was made first ;)
Of course you would try this, since as I already said, it’s propaganda, doesn’t exist. Can’t throw your hat in an argument, then balk when questioned lmfao.
Edit, I also always asked elsewhere, so why hasn’t someone brought any of its marketed this way?
Okay. Ah . . . Yep, it was yours.
So that’s the claim, and it was made first. Now. Let’s see that link!
And ACTUALLY up the chain…
lemmy.world/comment/17567218
Oh that’s a different person there. You can tell because there’s a different name on top of the comment.
I mean, I don’t have a link to prove that though, so, maybe it is me? Hm. That’s certainly something to think about.
You’re joining an argument in the middle, doesn’t matter who said it first.
Also. How do you propose I provide you evidence that’s it’s NOT marketed? The mere lack of it, and the lack of you being able to provide any, should be ample proof for someone wanting to have a civil discourse.
Nuh uh, you are.
Yea, in a chain where the first claim was, “ai was marketed as a be all end all”. If you want to support their side with civil discourse, please provide evidence. Because all you seem to be doing here is trolling.
So you admit you have no link for your claim which came first before my claim.
You may again defer to a third party and argue yet another claim was before yours but I say unto thee - wasn’t that claim in reference to one before it? Such a line of inquiry would inevitably lead us to The Original Claim, to which only God or maybe Sam Altman could provide the link to substantiate it.
Therefore, in lieu of petitioning God (or Sam Altman) for a substantiating link to The Original Claim, or the person to whom you were addressing (unless it was me, we’re still checking on that) the onus falls to you to provide a link to substantiate your claim. Failure to do so will go down on your permanent record.
These tools are marketed as replacing lots of jobs that are a hell of a lot more complex than a simple board game.
There isn’t really a single sliding scale of “complexity” when it comes to certain tasks.
Given the appropriate input, a calculator can divide two numbers. But it can’t count the number of R’s in the word “strawberry”.
Meanwhile, a script that could count the number of instances of a letter in a word could count those R’s, but it couldn’t divide any two numbers.
Similarly, we didn’t complain that a typewriter couldn’t put pepperoni slices onto a pizza.
Source?
Hear hear.
Made people click though didnt it.
Attempting to badly quote someone on another post: « How can people honestly think a glorified word autocomplete function could be able to understand what is a logarithm? »
You can make external tools available to the LLM and then provide it with instructions for when/how to use them.
So, for example, you’d describe to it that if someone asks it about math or chess, then it should generate JSON text according to a given schema and generate the command text to parametrize a script with it. The script can then e.g. make an API call to Wolfram Alpha or call into Stockfish or whatever.
This isn’t going to be 100% reliable. For example, there’s a decent chance of the LLM fucking up when generating the relatively big JSON you need for describing the entire state of the chessboard, especially with general-purpose LLMs which are configured to introduce some amount of randomness in their output.
But well, in particular, ChatGPT just won’t have the instructions built-in for calling a chess API/program, so for this particular case, it is likely as dumb as auto-complete. It will likely have a math API hooked up, though, so it should be able to calculate a logarithm through such an external tool. Of course, it might still not understand when to use a logarithm, for example.
clop - clop - clop - clop - clop - clop
. . .
*bloop*
. . .
[screen goes black for 20 minutes]
. . .
Hmmmmm.
clop - clop - clop - clop - clop - clop - clop - clop - clop - clop
*bloop*
Hey I don’t mean to ruin your day, but maybe you should Google what you just commented…
There is 100% no chance google knows what that is
Little disappointed more people didn’t get this.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/32e12067-0e4e-40ce-ba80-570ddd1e982d.gif">
in other words, a hammer “got absolutely wrecked” by a handsaw in a board-halving competition
One of those Fisher-Price plastic hammers with the hole in the handle?
When all you have (or you try to convince others that all they need) is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I guess this shows that it isn’t.
Clearly you didn’t swing the hammer hard enough
What happens if you ask ChatGPT to code you a chess AI though?
It doesn’t work without 200 hours of un-fucking
It probably consumes as much energy as a family house for a day just to come up with that program. That’s what happens.
In fact, I did a Google search and didn’t have any choice but to have an “AI” answer, even if I don’t want it. Here’s what it says:
Average daily energy consumption for a family in the US is said to be around 30.000 wh per day.
That would be about 10.000 chatgpt queries per day to equal that.
To have more references, average energy consumption of an hour playing a AAA computer game can easily be 600-1000 wh. Depending on the graphic card.
That must be why Google’s greenhouse emissions went up 50% in five years. ChatGPT’s legendary efficiency.
Keep defending those power wasting glorified autocomplete. In no way are we doomed as a species.
We can just continue tu pump more and more into the air. “AI” will surely find a solution for that anyway.
Google is not related with chatgpt. Chatgpt parent company is openAI which is a competitor with google.
A more rational explanation is that technology and digital services on general have been growing and are on the rise. Both because more and more complex services are being offered, and more importantly more people are requesting those services. Whole continents that used not to be cover by digital services are now covered. Generative AI is just a very small part of all that.
The best approach to reduce CO2 emissions is to ask for a reduction in human population. From my point of view is the only rational approach, as with a growing population there’s only two solutions, pollute until we die, or reduce quality of life until life is not worth living. Reducing population allows for fewer people to live better loves without destroying the planet.
In other news: My toaster makes better toast than my vacuum.
Your vacuum uses more power than a 150,000-person city just to clean an 8’ square rug?
That does suck.
Heh.
If ChatGPT were marketed as a toaster nobody would bat an eye. The reason so many are laughing is because ChatGPT is marketed as a general intelligence tool.
Do you have any OpenAI stuff (ad, interview, presentation…) That claims it’s AGI? Because I’ve never seen such thing, only people hyping it for clicks and ad revenue
I was very careful not to use the term AGI for this reason. General intelligence tool isn’t the same thing. It’s a much weaker claim, yet it’s also a far stronger claim than any purpose-built software. The ambiguity is part of their marketing strategy.
Question remains. Any marketing about it being general intelligence? Not general use, but general intelligence.
No, though there’s been plenty of marketing where they claim “we know how to build AGI.”
They have marketed ChatGPT as a general purpose AI from the very beginning, though the question of how to leverage that has remained open.
If llms are statistics based, wouldn’t there be many many more losing games than perfectly winning ones? It’s like Dr strange saying ‘this is the only way’.
It’s not even that. It’s not a chess AI or a AGI (which doesn’t exist). It will speak and pretend to play, but has no memory of the exact position of the pieces nor the capability to plan several steps ahead. For ask intended and porpoises, it’s like asking my toddler what’s the time (she always says something that sounds like a time, but doesn’t understand the concept of hours or what the time is)
The fact that somebody posted this on LinkedIn and not only wasn’t shamed out of his job but there are several articles about it is truly infuriating.
My 2€ calculator obliterates a 200.000€ ferrari doing multiplications.
Man all these people coping, I thought chatgpt was supposed to be a generic one able to do anything?
It depends. Have you used it? If not - Yes! It does do . . . all the things.
If you have used it, I’m sorry that was incorrect. You simply need to pay for the upgraded subscription. Oh, and as a trusted insider now we can let you in on a secret - the next version of this thing is gonna be, like, wow! Boom shanka! Everyone else will be so far behind!
You know, when you put it like that, it kind of sounds like Scientology…
That’s on them for taking on the Atari 2600, where “the games don’t get older, they get better!”
True AI does not and will not exist