Then the actual chess isn’t LLM.

And neither did the Atari 2600 win against ChatGPT. Whatever game they ran on it did.

That’s my point here. The fact that neither Atari 2600 nor ChatGPT are capable of playing chess on their own. They can only do so if you provide them with the necessary tools. Which applies to both of them. Yet only one of them was given those tools here.

Isn’t the Atari just a game console, not a chess engine?

Like, Wikipedia doesn’t mention anything about the Atari 2600 having a built-in chess engine.

If they were willing to run a chess game on the Atari 2600, why did they not apply the same to ChatGPT? There are custom GPTs which claim to use a stockfish API or play at a similar level.

Like this, it’s just unfair. Both platforms are not designed to deal with the task by themselves, but one of them is given the necessary tooling, the other one isn’t. No matter what you think of ChatGPT, that’s not a fair comparison.

Edit: Given the existing replies and downvotes, I think this comment is being misunderstood. I would like to try clarifying again what I meant here.

First of all, I’d like to ask if this article is satire. That’s the only way I can understand the replies I’ve gotten that critized me on grounds of the marketing aspect of LLMs (when the article never brings up that topic itself, nor did I). Like, if this article is just some tongue in cheek type thing about holding LLMs to the standards they’re advertised at, I can understand both the article and the replies I’ve gotten. But the article never suggests so itself. So my assumption when writing my comment was that this is not the case and it is serious.

The Atari is hardware. It can’t play chess on its own. To be able to, you need a game for it which is inserted. Then the Atari can interface with the cartridge and play the game.

ChatGPT is an LLM. Guess what, it also can’t play chess on its own. It also needs to interface with a third party tool that enables it to play chess.

Neither the Atari nor ChatGPT can directly, on their own, play chess. This was my core point.

I merely pointed out that it’s unfair that one party in this comparison is given the tool it needs (the cartridge), but the other party isn’t. Unless this is satire, I don’t see how marketing plays a role here at all.

There are custom GPTs which claim to play at a stockfish level or be literally stockfish under the hood (I assume the former is still the latter just not explicitly). Haven’t tested them, but if they work, I’d say yes. An LLM itself will never be able to play chess or do anything similar, unless they outsource that task to another tool that can. And there seem to be GPTs that do exactly that.

As for why we need ChatGPT then when the result comes from Stockfish anyway, it’s for the natural language prompts and responses.

kbin is dead when I look at the repo

kbin is dead yeah, but it does have an active fork in Mbin. That’s what I’m using.

Lemmy isn’t the only platform on the fediverse, nor the only one with communities.

I’m writing from Mbin btw, another platform that’s not Lemmy.

Are you sure about that?

• It’s still Vernissage on Github
• Looking up impressia just returns a pixelfed client by that name and nothing related to vernissage
• Didn’t see any PRs waiting to be merged either

Markdown is a markup language, which can be used by users to indicate formatting hints to the underlying system. For example, you want a text to be bold, a markup language lets you tell that to the website in a way it understands.

Older markup languages tended to be verbose and complicated. For example, this is a numbered list in BBCode, which is the classic forum markup language: [ol][li]Item one[/li][li]Item two[/li][/ol].

Markdown keeps it simple and intuitive, for the most part.

1. item 1
2. item 2

The above is a numbered list in Markdown. Much simpler than the BBCode version. Simple enough that people like you can do it without even being aware of Markdown at all.

*This is cursive text*
**This is bold text**

# this is a heading

## this is a smaller heading

###### usually up to six levels are supported, but this might differ based on the implementation (my instance seems to make all of these the same size)

> this is a quote
it can span multiple lines too

this is a bullet point list:
- item 1
- item 2

[Links are more complicated, but still as easy as they can be](https://example.org)

The above doesn’t actually display formatted because I used a code block to show the Markdown as written. The below is how the above actually displays:

This is cursive text This is bold text

this is a heading

this is a smaller heading

usually up to six levels are supported, but this might differ based on the implementation (my instance seems to make all of these the same size)

this is a quote it can span multiple lines too

this is a bullet point list:

• item 1
• item 2

Links are more complicated, but still as easy as they can be

edit: this is what the original creator of Markdown has to say on the matter:

Markdown is intended to be as easy-to-read and easy-to-write as is feasible.

Readability, however, is emphasized above all else. A Markdown-formatted document should be publishable as-is, as plain text, without looking like it’s been marked up with tags or formatting instructions. While Markdown’s syntax has been influenced by several existing text-to-HTML filters — including Setext, atx, Textile, reStructuredText, Grutatext, and EtText — the single biggest source of inspiration for Markdown’s syntax is the format of plain text email.

To this end, Markdown’s syntax is comprised entirely of punctuation characters, which punctuation characters have been carefully chosen so as to look like what they mean. E.g., asterisks around a word actually look like emphasis. Markdown lists look like, well, lists. Even blockquotes look like quoted passages of text, assuming you’ve ever used email.

Hot take? Blue Sky should be worked with to join the Fediverse as the twitter alternative and Mastodon should work to be the Facebook alternative

??? Why should Mastodon become an entirely different kind of site when there’s already Facebook alternatives for the fediverse?

It’s a different blocking philosophy. Reddit used to work like Lemmy does, for example. The keyword here being “used to”. Here’s their announcement post from when they changed it.

I personally prefer this method of blocking, because you’re not a moderator or administrator and thus should not get to customize the experience of other users than yourself. Yes, there’s the legitimate use case of stopping mass downvoters. But two-way blocking can also be (and has been) used maliciously. You can slander someone and then block them, making them unable to defend themselves or even know what happened, for example.

My favourite feature is de-duplication, on PieFed if I view eg. this post It combines/aggregates it with cross-posts/reposts

Mbin does this too, I’m surprised to hear Lemmy doesn’t. Feels expected to have something like this with how fragmented the fediverse is.

FWIW, I’ve heard that they’ve recently been censoring any mentions of Lemmy.

Reddit doesn’t do that, it’s overzealous moderators that do. Like on /r/technology iirc.

/r/redditalternatives for example doesn’t get posts that mention Lemmy removed. If Reddit blanket censored the term, it would apply there too.

How does Discord even enter one’s mind as an alternative to Reddit?

With its forum channels, it at least has more of a claim to it than Twitter imo. And I’ve seen a lot of people claim they’re moving to Twitter/Mastodon/Bluesky as a Reddit alternative.

There’s a difference between knowing my baker is a nazi and being unaware of it. It’s morally wrong to be knowingly supporting a nazi, whether it’s by buying their product or by donating to them directly doesn’t matter.

It’s true that bread stays bread regardless of the baker’s political stance. But it’s not like the nazi baker is the only one in town. Just get your bread from a different baker. Bread is bread. The point of alternatives is that you can pick your source, whom you want to support. And that’s what OP is suggesting.

What kind of effect does knowing exactly which people downvoted you have on a platform? Is there a chilling effect on downvotes, is there revenge downvoting? I guess we’ll find out.

It’s not like we haven’t had public downvoting in the fediverse yet. We already found out in the past.

Kbin had public downvotes and the main effect was that people put more thought into their downvotes. While I assume it wasn’t without abuse, I’ve never seen it brought up as an active problem, just something that could theoretically happen.

Matrix definitely is federated.

You ran into the trap of taking “fediverse” at face value. It neither invented nor monopolizes federation. E-Mail is federated and has nothing to do with the fediverse. Wikipedia’s page on federation lists the very internet itself as the prime example.

Not implementing ActivityPub doesn’t mean Matrix isn’t federated.

I disagree that commenting for the sake of commenting is a good idea. Quality over quantity, a single meaningful discussion is superior to a sea of low effort garbage. I also want the fediverse to take off, but not at the cost of adopting modern Reddit culture.

a “good post”, by this metric, is really just a post that baits lots and lots of engagement

Baiting anything is bad.

by thread bumping

Thread bumping is still possible on Reddit-like social media too. Just use a sort that responds to activity, like the Active sort on Mbin or Piefed.

There WAS 1 chick in the fediverse.

The situation took a dark turn recently.

No, they’re downvoting because they don’t like what the post is saying.

People misusing voting buttons as a like/dlislike button is a well known issue and reality, at least on Reddit. But considering the system works the exact same here, it’s no surprise that the same problem persists here as well.

I assume it’s due to people not trusting Youtube with false positives. They don’t have the best reputation with the rest of their AI moderation stuff.