No, but I wouldn't be able to tell you what the player did wrong in general.
By contrast, the shortcomings of today's LLMs seem pretty obvious to me.
The (in)ability to recognize a strange move’s brilliance might depend on the complexity of the game. The real world is much more complex than any board game.
Unless it's a MUCH bigger play where through some butterfly effect it wants me to fail at something so I can succeed at something else.
My real name is John Connor by the way ;)
of course we can have AGI (damned if we don't) because we put so much, it better works
but the problem we cant do that right because its so expensive, AGI is not matter of if but when
but even then it always about the cost
They are good at framing what is going on and going over general plans and walking through some calculations and potential tactics. But I wouldn't say even really strong players like Leko, Polgar, Anand will have greater insights in a Magnus-Fabi game without the engine.
I think large language models have the same future as supersonic jet travel. It’s usefulness will fail to realize, with traditional models being good enough but for a fraction of the price, while some startups keep trying to push this technology but meanwhile consumers keep rejecting it.
Unlike supersonic passenger jet travel, which is possible and happened, but never had much of an impact on the wider economy, because it never caught on.
Demand for AI is insanely high. They can't make chips fast enough to meet customer demand. The energy industry is transforming to try to meet the demand.
Whomever is telling you that consumers are rejecting it is lying to you, and you should honestly probably reevaluate where you get your information. Because it's not serving you well.
