[pattrn]

This argument is pretty flimsy. ChatGPT makes illegal moves frequently. In all my years of playing competitive chess (from 1000 to 2200), I have never seen an illegal move. I'm sure it has happened to someone, but it's extremely rare. ChatGPT does it all the time. No one is arguing that humans never make illegal moves; they're arguing that ChatGPT makes illegal moves at a significantly higher rate than a 1400 player does (therefore ChatGPT does not have a 1400 rating).

Edit: Without reading everything again, I'll assume someone said "never." They're probably assuming the reader understands that "never" really means "with an infinitesimal probability," since we're talking about humans. If you're trying to argue that "some 1400 player has made an illegal move at some point," then I agree with that statement, and I also think it's irrelevant since the frequency of illegal moves made by ChatGPT compared to the frequency of illegal moves made by a 1400 rated player is many orders of magnitudes higher.

[mynameisvlad]

> No one is arguing that humans never make illegal moves

> something a 1400 ranked player would never do

> fine, fair, "never" was too much.

I mean, yes they were and they said as much after I called them out on it. But go off on how nobody is arguing the literal thing that was being argued.

It's not like messages are threaded or something, and read top-down. You would have 100% had to read the comment I replied to first.

[pattrn]

You have twice removed the substance of an argument and responded to an irrelevant nitpick. Here's what the OP said:

> He literally used the same prompt as the article. > Claim: "ChatGPT's Chess Elo is 1400"

> Reality: ChatGPT gives illegal moves (this happened to article author too),

> something a 1400 ranked player would never do

> Result: ChatGPT's rank is not 1400.

This is a completely fair argument that makes perfect sense to anyone with knowledge of competitive chess. I have never seen a 1400 make an illegal move. He probably hasn't either. Your point is literally correct in the sense that at some point in history a 1400 rated player has made an illegal move, but it completely misses the point of his argument: ChatGPT makes illegal moves at such an astronomically high rate that it wouldn't even be allowed to even play competitively, hence it cannot be accurately assessed at 1400 rating.

Imagine you made a bot that spewed random letters and said "My bot writes English as well as a native speaker, so long as you remove all of the letters that don't make sense." A native English speaker says, "You can't say the bot speaks English as well as a native speaker, since a native speaker would never write all those random letters." You would be correct in pointing out that sometimes native speakers make mistakes, but you would also be entirely missing the point. That's what's happening here.

[pattrn]

> Ah yes, of course, just because you never saw it means it never happens. That's definitely why rules exist around this specific thing happening. Because it never happens. Totally.

You seem to have missed the part where I said multiple times that a 1400 has definitely made illegal moves.

> In fact, it's so rare that in order to forefeit a game, you have to do it twice. But it never happens, ever, because pattrn has never seen it. Case closed everyone.

I actually said the exact opposite. You're responding to an argument I didn't make.

> I made no judgement on what ChatGPT can and can't do. I pointed out an extreme. Which the commenter agreed was an extreme. The rest of your comment is completely irrelevant but congrats on getting tilted over something that literally doesn't concern you. Next time, just save us both the time and effort and don't bother butting in with irrelevant opinions. Especially if you couldn't even bother to read what was already said.

The commenter's throwaway account never agreed it was an extreme. I agreed it was an extreme, but also that disproving that one extreme does nothing to contradict his argument. Yet again you aren't responding to the argument.

This entire exchange is baffling. You seem to be missing the point for a third time, and now you're misrepresenting what I said. Welcome to the internet, I guess.

[mynameisvlad]

> The commenter's throwaway account never agreed it was an extreme.

> fine, fair, "never" was too much.

This is the second time I've had to do this. Do you just pretend things weren't said or do you actually have trouble reading the comments that have been here for hours? You make these grand assertions which are disproven by... reading the things that are directly above your comment.

> This entire exchange is baffling.

Yeah your inability to read comments multiple times in a row is extremely baffling.

As I said before:

> Next time, just save us both the time and effort and don't bother butting in with irrelevant opinions. Especially if you couldn't even bother to read what was already said.

[throwwwaway69]

> The commenter's throwaway account never agreed it was an extreme.

I did, two hours ago, 6 minutes after your comment

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35201830

[pattrn]

Thanks! I appreciate it.

[mynameisvlad]

> I have never seen a 1400 make an illegal move.

Ah yes, of course, just because you never saw it means it never happens. That's definitely why rules exist around this specific thing happening. Because it never happens. Totally.

In fact, it's so rare that in order to forefeit a game, you have to do it twice. But it never happens, ever, because pattrn has never seen it. Case closed everyone.

I made no judgement on what ChatGPT can and can't do. I pointed out an extreme. Which the commenter agreed was an extreme. The rest of your comment is completely irrelevant but congrats on getting tilted over something that literally doesn't concern you. Next time, just save us both the time and effort and don't bother butting in with irrelevant opinions. Especially if you couldn't even bother to read what was already said.