32
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2025
32 points (88.1% liked)
Asklemmy
55361 readers
82 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
It's really easy to show this even with a known problem. Ask an LLM to play a game of chess, and then give it 1. h3 as a first move. They always screw up immediately, by making an illegal move. This happens because 1. h3 is hardly ever played, so it isn't part of it's model. In fact, it'll usually play a move that 'normally' responds to h3, like Bh5 for example
I don't think AGI would be just a pure offline LLM. If you allowed it to code, it'd probably fare quite a bit better. An LLM is not a chess engine and was never meant to be. It's quite capable of using it as a tool, though.
I don't know if AGI is achievable in the near future but it wouldn't be a model. It'd be a system.