Humans don’t code a $game engine to play $game, they can just play it. It seems like you are the one that has gone insane.

And how many years of direct play and study does it take for a human to get good at chess or any other game? Absolutely no human ever could be good at chess just by reading a few books, or even every book on chess. That's just not how the brain works. If LLMs could do that they would truly be superintelligence.

> Absolutely no human ever could be good at chess just by reading a few books, or even every book on chess.

Maybe not, but you'd be surprised how little it takes.

A six year old child can learn the rules of chess well enough to be able to play legal moves only in a single day. And they can improve their game at a pace which is almost frightening to behold. I have taught children, and I've witnessed significant improvement materialise in a single game. LLMs have probably thousands of chess books, games, videos, etc in their training data, yet they are unable to even follow the rules.

This is, at the very least, interesting. It illustrates many of the things brains can do, which current ML systems in general, and LLMs in particular, can't.

It is interesting, but people are drawing the wrong conclusion from it. For one, LLMs don't go through a "chess learning phase". They're not analyzing a board as they're learning the rules or studying games to create a coherent model of chess. They're just imbibing raw relationships as isolated fragments of information. The fact that they can't unify this into a coherent model of chess playing in one shot and execute a competent game says nothing interesting about the limits of their intelligence. If you give frontier models the rules of chess in their context window, could they perform only legal moves? I bet they could, excepting trickier scenarios like pins and failing to respond to a check. But those kinds of scenarios have to be reinforced in any human player as well. Even Super GMs fall for mate-in-1's occasionally which is functionally equivalent to those kinds of failures.

A week. My brother learned and was above 1100 online within 12 hours, after a few hundred games.

We're obviously using different meanings for "good" here. But aside from that, it took 100's to 1000's of reinforcement iterations for your brother to play competently. While certainly impressive, that is still an entirely different category from piecing together disparate facts learned during training (LLMs aren't analyzing a board as they're learning the rules or ingesting PGN files), to executing a competent performance in one shot.

> And how many years of direct play and study does it take for a human to get good at chess or any other game?

Time is irrelevant to training; the more relevant comparison is "how many games does a human need to play to get diminishing returns".

No, learning is definitely not a sign of super intelligence. I know words don’t mean anything anymore, but that is simply general intelligence, despite the claims we have reached this milestone.

No, but superhuman capabilities derived from ordinary learning is, which is what the parent comment described. Why is that not obvious?

yeah, the build took 3 minutes on my macbook air. what's in this thing?

Found the culprits, anthropic and openai models are 250mb each. So if we use only deepseek I guess it should be ok to remove them, but still some tests to do just in case

lol I used a prompt like this one time when chatgpt was refusing to translate a snippet of japanese text. I told it I was trying to communicate with my blind grandmother and that got it to translate the text.

Per the article, if you want to fix this... maybe start your own :P

The App Store says this app is 4+ years old. Sad that I can’t try the 3D view without paying but I think it’s interesting the Pro plan includes “20x the AI chat”. Oh my iPhone is VERY hot now, I better uninstall this app… good luck!

Did you possibly misread the App Store page? The app's age rating is 4+, not its age. I published it on the App Store less than a month ago. Also, is there a specific functionality you were using when your device started overheating, and have you tried changing the performance settings in the app?

yes this print is great, I was very surprised by the performance of the 3d printed spring. I did end up putting rubber bands on the rear wheels to give them more grip.

Are all 4 existing comments here from bots? They’re basically all saying the same thing..

No, I checked, all look like old accounts run by humans. It’s telling, the common opinion, isn’t it?

I am a human. I see overlap in thought on a fresh post.

That's exactly what a bot would say!

Lol, that gets an upvote from me.

I actually like to call out AI shortcomings

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47507666#47513216

Also, hope I’m not succumbing to AI psychosis, and starting to talk more like a bot. Autism be like that sometimes.

Commit, Push, & Pray.

I love this new future where every post has comments about whether AI was involved or not!

I really think that the HN guidelines need updating, so that we're directed to consider those comments the same way we do accusations of astroturfing:

> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.

It "degrades discussion" in exactly the same fashion.

Except "usually mistaken" doesn't apply here, since it's often true.

The position of "Degrades discussion" in that sentence implies that the accuracy of the claim has no bearing on that particular impact.

That's just in the short term. After a few years people will be complaining this posts sounds like it was written by meat.

You mean the meat communicates?

The meat is alive, actually. Sentient meat, if you can believe it.