|
|
|
|
|
|
by delusional
483 days ago
|
|
|
It's quite an odd setup. If we presuppose the "agent" is smart enough to knowingly cheat, would it then also not be smart enough to knowingly lie? All I really get out of this experiment is that there are weights in there that encode the fact that it's doing an invalid move. The rules of chess are in there. With that knowledge it's not surprising that the most likely text generated when doing an invalid move is an explanation for the invalid move. It would be more surprising if it completely ignored it. It's not really cheating, it's weighing the possibility of there being an invalid move at this position, conditioned by the prompt, higher than there being a valid move. There's no planning, it's all statistics. |
|
|
The chorus line of every human ever attempting to rationalize cheating.