Hacker News Reader

Comment by chester_r | Hacker News Reader

If AI is better at chess and can implement chess strategies that can reliably beat any other human, why can't it make better strategic decisions in real geopolitical situations? I don't see how they are fundamentally different.

View on HN

Chess mostly boils down to a mathematical optimization problem within a fixed, predetermined rulset, with predefined success and failure conditions.

Geopolitical decisions involve pursuing outcomes in situations involving far more variables, often changing in realtime due to factors outside the "game board", where the rules are complex, mutable, and not necessarily known in advance, and where the success and failure conditions are subjective and may themselves change during the course of the scenario.

Geopolitical situations are Chess, Nomic, and Werewolf all rolled into one. How good is AI at winning all of these games?

(Folks, this was sarcasm to point out its parent’s logical fallacy.

There’s no need to address it literally.)

llms are in fact, not better than traditional chess engines at chess. most benchmarks that llms are trained for are coding, math and science benchmarks, that's why performance tends to be spikey

The claim was for AI, not LLMs. Move 37 taught us AI is better than us at strategy games, more than a decade ago.

Can llms even play chess? Last time I tried they were making nonsensical illegal moves (for example, moving non-existent pieces).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com