[whimsicalism]

I disagree. If there is a procedure for getting ChatGPT to play chess accurately and you discard that and do some naive approach as a way of disproving the article, doesn't sound to me like you have disproven anything.

I dont understand the point of your second sentence, seems to be entirely missing the substance of the conversation.

[z3c0]

The gymnastics you GPT True Believers go through to make this stuff "work" are really something else.

By the way - definitely read the article. But once again - I thought the methodology was bad, and thus the conclusion was bad.

[whimsicalism]

I don’t think this is any crazy level of gymnastics.

But not going to keep replying, you engage online in a way that will turn lots of people you talk to away.

[z3c0]

I'll admit to having mistook your reply with another (hence the non-sequitur second half of my comment.) Apologies for my brusque tone.