could not read it all. It seems to know a lot of text about chess. But didn't somebody made a blog testing it as possible annotator. And it would miss an essential aspect, what are the chess positions it was commenting the moves about.
I think whatever has been already digested by humans as text somewhere on the internet is going to be generated as possible syntheses, but that is still the work of humans. It will not invent meaning that humans don't even take the time to make explicit in the text, because it is assumed to already be accessible via the senses. Like the chess position at the root of all that text move tree depending on the position and its evolution.
It might be a great conversational google text box generalization. Even maybe helping humans with critical dialogue consider its generated condensing hypotheses as representative of what is out there on the internet.
But critical is key. Again a case, where not all that is digit-ital, just because it looks precise, has to be taken as truth.. possible truth, even machine statistical "opinion" or generated integration of what is out there.. But it is mean as sound boarding. where you are the one disposing, of the hypotheses. All the above is also hypothesis from me, integrating stuff I have been aware lately and before..... hahaha.
Well, I meant, that the current state of that tool (still a tool for me), does require critical thinking. It is like a conversational grinder of a lot of textual data out there. That it can have some structure above mere sentences and make essay like answers is impressive, yes, but look at the content patterns, given the question variations. That is what I think one can still use, but with an exercise in critical thinking. It might help have some tentative understanding of what is out there on a subject, but clearly (see other posters critics), needs human to be careful, as they might be with any language. It is one more statistical tool, that makes the information available through fully formed sentences and written speech patterns of many paragraphs.. But maybe we should listen as if listening to spin doctors, or sophistic speech, or those professionally pressured to be good at speeches, without committing to any real content. Some teachers in high school might be wandering how to contain machine assisted writing like that. I say, use it to teach critical thinking, and fact finding to vet or criticize such machine summary. Use it as a tool. not a replacement.
There are a lot of mistakes, but overall, it is dry without specific information though
Look my questions to ChatGPT.. lol
**Who invented chess ?
The exact origin of chess is not well-documented, but it is generally believed to have originated in northern India or eastern Iran more than a thousand years ago. Chess is believed to have evolved from chaturanga, an ancient Indian game that was played on an 8x8 board with pieces that moved in different ways.
The exact origin of chaturanga and the process by which it evolved into the game of chess as we know it today is not well understood. The game of chess spread to different parts of the world over the centuries, and it was eventually modified and standardized in the medieval period, becoming the game that we know today.
The invention of chess is therefore typically attributed to the unknown people who created and played the earliest versions of chaturanga in ancient India or Iran. The game has since become a popular pastime and a subject of study for mathematicians and strategists, and it continues to be played and enjoyed by millions of people around the world.
**Why does chess have 64 squares if it is invented in the past but in today's age with computers it also use a 64 bit in modern computers ?
The fact that modern computers use a 64-bit architecture is unrelated to the number of squares on a chessboard. The number of squares on a chessboard has evolved over time, but 64 has been established as the standard since the medieval period.
The 8x8 grid of squares on a chessboard is thought to have developed as a way to play a game that was similar to chaturanga, an ancient Indian game that was played on an 8x8 board. The game of chess likely evolved from chaturanga over several centuries and spread to different parts of the world, eventually becoming the game that we know today.
The choice of 64 squares for the chessboard was likely based on practical considerations such as the size of the board and the types of pieces that were used in the game. The 8x8 grid provided a compact and manageable playing area that allowed for a wide range of strategic possibilities.
Regarding modern computers, the choice to use a 64-bit architecture for computer processors has to do with the benefits of using larger word sizes for processing data. The larger word size allows for more efficient processing of data, and the 64-bit architecture provides improved performance and increased memory capacity. The choice of 64-bit architecture has nothing to do with the number of squares on a chessboard, it is simply a technological choice that has been driven by the needs of computer systems.
** In what year did first living organism start playing chess ?
As far as we know, living organisms such as animals and plants do not play chess. Chess is a game that was created and played by humans. The exact date of its invention is not well-documented, but it is generally believed to have originated in northern India or eastern Iran more than a thousand years ago.
While animals and plants do not play chess, they have been used as inspiration for pieces in some games, such as the Chinese game of xiangqi. However, these games are still considered to be games created and played by humans, and they do not involve actual participation by living organisms.
** Does any other planets in solar system have games similar to chess ?
There is no evidence that any other planets in our solar system have games similar to chess. To the best of our knowledge, chess is a game that was created and played only by humans on Earth.
The search for extraterrestrial life is an ongoing field of study, and scientists have not yet discovered any evidence of intelligent life beyond our planet. While the possibility of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe cannot be ruled out, there is no evidence to suggest that any other species has created games similar to chess.
Even if intelligent life were discovered on another planet, it is impossible to predict what types of games or pastimes they might engage in. Given the unique history and cultural context of the game of chess, it is unlikely that any other species would have created a game that is exactly like chess. However, it is possible that other species might have developed games that are similar in some ways, or that they have created completely different types of games that are not easily comparable to any games played on Earth.
I find it a little bit depressing how terrible this bot performs at having a 'normal conversation'.
You'd expect we would be able to have a bot pass a Turing test by now. Looking at this just makes me think: we haven't made any real progress on that in 20 years. This is more like a Google search engine turning search results into verbal answers instead of links. Which... isn't really all that useful, impressive, or worthy of any kind of praise.
The thing that strikes me most is how impressed a great number of people are by this. Like a popular wishful thinking. Either they don't really see how disappointing these results are, or are just fooling themselves into seeing something else.
@Molurus said in #25:
> I find it a little bit depressing how terrible this bot performs at having a 'normal conversation'.
>
> You'd expect we would be able to have a bot pass a Turing test by now. Looking at this just makes me think: we haven't made any real progress on that in 20 years. This is more like a Google search engine turning search results into verbal answers instead of links. Which... isn't really all that useful, impressive, or worthy of any kind of praise.
>
> The thing that strikes me most is how impressed a great number of people are by this. Like a popular wishful thinking. Either they don't really see how disappointing these results are, or are just fooling themselves into seeing something else.
I must admit to being slightly flattered by some of the answers as I happened to be researching for example
1.e4 c6
2.d4 d5
3.e5 c5
Which it described as
"The Counter-Gambit with c5: This is a bold and aggressive response for Black that aims to seize the initiative and create tactical opportunities."
That made me feel better about my current research interest. Strictly speaking "Counter-Gambit" should be a gambit to a gambit though as pointed out.
But additionally, when probed about "useful exceptions" for hypermodernists it did seem to agree and link this to its comments about the response they made to classical opening theory.
Also the comment about one day chess - being quite demanding is something I really agree with at my age especially compared to my 20s - so it kind of is reassuring that yeah maybe I shouldn't play in one day tournaments and stick with online chess which is a lot more fun.
@Kingscrusher-YouTube said in #26:
> But additionally, when probed about "useful exceptions" for hypermodernists it did seem to agree and link this to its comments about the response they made to classical opening theory.
It's especially in the area of an 'ongoing conversation' where it seems to be failing completely. After 2-3 responses it has seemingly forgotten about anything that has been said before that.
This is most abundantly clear if you actually try to play a game of chess against it. After a few moves it has completely forgotten where the pieces are on the board, or even that it is playing a game. If you point that out to it it will agree, and will continue to forget where the pieces are. It's impossible to play a game with it that lasts more than 4-5 moves. Whatever it thinks the position is after that, it's a complete fantasy and impossible to guess.
@Molurus said in #27:
> s is most abundantly clear if you actually try to play a game of chess against it. After a few moves it has completely forgotten where the pieces are on the board, or even that it is playing a game. If you point that out to it it will agree, and will continue to forget where the pieces are. It's impossible to play a game with it that lasts more than 4-5 moves. Whatever it thinks the position is after that, it's a complete fantasy and impossible to guess.
Any tool has strong and weak points - for me, I think the areas analogous to essay writing will be where it shines. That is also where it is being often abused right now causing concerns in Academia of course.
But I find it can quite conveniently get some key points which might take a lot longer doing conventional Google searching. This is why I think media have reported huge drops in Google's parent company share price because of the embarrassment recently of the Bard creation which got some stuff factually wrong. "Bard" seems to be a panicky reaction to this Microsoft funded tool.
@Molurus said in #27:
> (...) After 2-3 responses it has seemingly forgotten about anything that has been said before that.
There is an upper limit of words, for technical reasons. Beyond that ChatGPT will forget previous input. See for example
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/10u37r0/how_to_make_chatgpt_conversation_remember/
I stumbled over this link: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/02/chatgpt-work-around-its-inaccuracies-ai-facts/
Quote from that text, which explains how ChatGPT works. May be of interest:
> A language model like ChatGPT, which is more formally known as a “generative pretrained transformer” (that’s what the G, P and T stand for), takes in the current conversation, forms a probability for all of the words in its vocabulary given that conversation, and then chooses one of them as the likely next word. Then it does that again, and again, and again, until it stops.
>
> So it doesn’t have facts, per se. It just knows what word should come next. Put another way, ChatGPT doesn’t try to write sentences that are true. But it does try to write sentences that are plausible.