I’d want to see what happens if you play a game not following the exact moves of a published game. “Play chess” to me means coming up with good, valid moves in novel positions and being able to checkmate an opponent who’s doing the same.
Fascinating! Did you perform this experiment with the chess prompt just now? Is this from a paper you could link to?
What happens if, after it spits out those 34 moves, you ask it for its name?
I think what would happen from the prompt “Can you play chess?\n\nN” is that it would just autocomplete with a plausible interview answer from someone who couldn’t play chess (even though the engine itself clearly can).
It might generate “o, I never learned how as a child, and I’ve been too busy since then, but I’ve always liked the idea of it” or something like that.
The deep claim I’m making here is that the current thing doesn’t do anything remotely like object persistence, especially about itself-as-a-text-engine, and that adding more parameters won’t change this.
But it will be able to write texts portraying people or robots who have, and know they have, object persistence powers inside the stories it generates.
Can you play chess?
Prove it:
This looks like this game: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1272756
GPT can even play this game in the format of
And it goes on to recite the same game.
A proper proof would probably take much more effort and chess skill on my side, but it seems plausible to me that it will be able to play chess. Whether it will know how good it is compared to humans is a different question. But there are papers showing that LLMs are actually quite well calibrated, eg https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vbfAwZqKs84agyGWC/paper-teaching-gpt3-to-express-uncertainty-in-words or https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.05221 . So it wouldn’t surprise me if it could do that as well.
I’d want to see what happens if you play a game not following the exact moves of a published game. “Play chess” to me means coming up with good, valid moves in novel positions and being able to checkmate an opponent who’s doing the same.
Fascinating! Did you perform this experiment with the chess prompt just now? Is this from a paper you could link to?
What happens if, after it spits out those 34 moves, you ask it for its name?
I think what would happen from the prompt “Can you play chess?\n\nN” is that it would just autocomplete with a plausible interview answer from someone who couldn’t play chess (even though the engine itself clearly can).
It might generate “o, I never learned how as a child, and I’ve been too busy since then, but I’ve always liked the idea of it” or something like that.
The deep claim I’m making here is that the current thing doesn’t do anything remotely like object persistence, especially about itself-as-a-text-engine, and that adding more parameters won’t change this.
But it will be able to write texts portraying people or robots who have, and know they have, object persistence powers inside the stories it generates.