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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
SUVs aren’t marketed as grass mowers. LLMs are marketed as AI with all the answers.
Hear hear.
I’d be interested in seeing marketing of ChatGPT as a competitive boardgame player. Is there any?
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.
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.
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 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Source?