Comment by Topfi

2 hours ago

I very much agree that the next models will be better, heck, I still suck at hobbyist training and could probably coax t5 to do better in Chess specifically, just need to get loads of data from Stockfish.

Thing is, given what GPT-6 Astra was trained on and what models of a similar class can do (including developing a competitive chess engine), it is often paradoxical and somewhat surprising how little these models have gained in actually capability that is in the training data, but not RLHFd to hell, so to speak. Tracking the state of pieces, I suspect given similar in Sudoku [0], is what these models struggle with in game settings, whilst tracking the state of code changes can be reliable over 250k tokens. Essentially, for the latter they were trained in the specific manner that lead them to abstract the capability, but that doesn't track to the former, which is a massive difference between LLMs data focused training and human learning.

So yeah, GPT-7 or any upcoming/present LLM could do massively better in Chess than GPT-6 Astra, but not because the approach was emergent out of pure data. Rather, it requires a very specific training data type and stack for a model to gain capabilities that track a specific task long enough to adhere to the rules of a game such as chess.

[0] https://logicalintelligence.com/blog/energy-based-model-sudo...

I'm wondering if instructing it to track the board state in a file would make a significant difference then.

It reminds me of the ARC-AGI-3 issue where not dropping the thinking tokens between turns or something like that + a new context compaction method increased the performance dramatically. However, I think that is not applicable here.

So what is the supposed leap? One agent per option to change, evaluating the board state that there move would create, by having a army evaluate the remaining piece options and average over that? Wee-Free-Man as a hierarchical army ? Pet-LLMs trained on one thing?