zlacker

If AI can program, why does it matter if it can play Chess using CoT when it can program a Chess Engine instead? This applies to other domains as well.

>>10xDev+(OP)
They should be allowed to! In fact i think better benchmark would be to invent new games and test the models ability to allocate compute to minmax/alphazero new games in compute constraints

>>10xDev+(OP)
Its the same reason we are asked to write exams without using calculators but the real world does have them.

How you work without calculators is a proxy for real world competency.

>>simian+06
Funny, you used probably the most useless form of benchmarking used on people as an example of measuring "competency" in the real world.

>>10xDev+d7
are you in favour of children using calculators in exams?

>>simian+r7
It is a program. I need it to get task X done and I don't care how, whether it is strictly through CoT or with tools. There is no such thing as cheating in real work and no reason to handicap it. Just test the limits of what it can do with whatever means possible.

Trying to solve everything with CoT alone without utilising tools seems futile.

>>10xDev+d7
A lot of the insights of math come from knowing how to do things efficiently. That’s why the tests are timed. I don’t know, this is pretty basic pedagogy that you are choosing to grief.

>>10xDev+a8
you are not understanding. its a proxy for how well it does other things.

>>10xDev+(OP)
> If AI can program, why does it matter if it can play Chess using CoT when it can program a Chess Engine instead?

Heh, we really did come full circle on this! When chatgpt launched in dec22 one of the first things that people noticed is that it sucked at math. Like basic math 12 + 35 would trip it up. Then people "discovered" tool use, and added a calculator. And everyone was like "well, that's cheating, of course it can use a calculator, but look it can't do the simple addition logic"... And now here we are :)

>>Nitpic+4h
IMO there's an expectation for baseline intelligence. I don't expect an "AGI" model to beat Magnus Carlsen out of the box but it should be able to do basic grade school level arithmetic and play chess at a complete beginner level without resorting to external tools.

>>10xDev+(OP)
It can write a chess engine because it has read the code of a thousand of chess engines. This benchmark measures a different aspect of intelligence.

And as a poker player, I can say that this game is much more challenging for computers than chess, writing a program that can play poker really well and efficiently is an unsolved problem.

>>10xDev+(OP)
CoT is upstream of building a chess engine.

Chess engines don’t grow on trees, they’re built by intelligent systems that can think, namely human brains.

Supposedly we want to build machines that can also think, not just regurgitate things created by human brains. That’s why testing CoT is important.

It’s not actually about chess, it’s about thinking and intelligence.

>>10xDev+(OP)
I'm not going to respond to everything but the key to my comment was "This applies to other domains as well." But people are limiting their imagination to the chess engine example given for chess. The tool or program (or even other neural networks that are available) can be literally anything for any task... Use your imagination.

Maybe we should just get rid of tedious benchmarks like chess altogether at this point that is leading people to think of how to limit AI as a way of keeping it a relevant benchmark rather than expanding on what is already there.

>>simian+Qb
A good proxy is knowing which tools to use to solve the problem. Not how to try and emulate how a human would play chess. That is pointless...

>>Rivier+lr
The program doesn't need to be a solver. It can be anything that helps it.

It doesn't even need to be one tool but a series of tools.

>>Rivier+lr
The most popular form was solved in 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluribus_(poker_bot)

>>10xDev+uF
According to you, it says nothing about a person if they are good at chess

>>marksi+lv1
Pluribus didn't solve poker. It's limited to fixed starting stack sizes. It can't exploit weak opponents, it tries to approach a Nash equilibrium, but in multiplayer poker, Nash equilibrium doesn't have the theoretical guarantees it does in head's up. And lastly, it requires a ton of compute.