One of my earliest exposures to the power of bitwise operators happened when I was learning to write chess engines. This was right around the time 64 bit processors were hitting the markets, which allowed storing one bit of information per square, making it ideal for efficient processing via bitwise operators. There were some clever operations that allowed finding sliding piece collisions in only a few assembly instructions (with prodigious use of BSR and BSF) and a small amount of precomputed memory.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
Think blindfolded 1400 players, which is what this effectively is, would make illegal moves.
But even if it doesn't play like human 1400 players, if it can get to a 1400 elo while resigning games it makes illegal moves on, that seems 1400 level to me. And i bet that some 1400s do occasionally make illegal moves (missing pins) while playing otb
This isn't really an apt metaphor. Firstly because higher level blindfolded players, when trained to play with a blindfold, also virtually never make mistakes. Secondly because a computer has permanent concrete state management (compared to humans) and can, without error, keep a perfect representation of a chess if it chooses to do so.
Personally I think the illegal moves are irreverent, the fact that it doesn't play exactly like a typical 1400 doesn't mean it can't have a 1400 rating. Rating is purely determined by wins and losses against opponents, it doesn't matter if you lose a game by checkmate, resignation, or playing an illegal move.
That's not to say ChatGPT can play at 1400, just that that playing in an odd way doesn't determine its rating.
No it's not, we're not ignoring losses or illegal moves at all, they are counted as losses and that's how you arrive at 1400.
It's a (theoretically) 1400 player which plays significantly better then 1400 when it knows the lines, but makes bad or illegal moves when it doesn't, and that play averages out to be around your typical 1400 player. Functionally is just what a 1400 player already is, but with higher extremes and lower lows.
Same exact thing happened to a friend of mine who was just about to launch. He didn't realize that he had only paid for the dynos, but was using a free tier DB. No communication at all, and they wiped out his data. Needless to say, he is no longer a customer.
He's moved on to Render since then (and he's now backing up his data offsite). Painful lesson to learn, but at least he hadn't launched his product yet.
Do you have any source for this? I've been playing Counter-Strike since the original beta, and it's been popular since its creation, far before skins existed. As far as the funding goes, I have no idea, but would love to see some numbers.
I don't belive that there are public numbers disclosing the funding sources for tournaments. Valve throws in a bit, and betting sites are often sponsors.
CS was totally popular before skin's. I recall the riot shield being particularly fun for me.
Is this really the case? While CRDT's are designed to work peer-to-peer, they don't need to be fully connected to all clients. Forcing the synchronization through controlled nodes (a server or cluster) allows adding read/write permissions. Depending on the use case, it may require additional logic for reversing operations before propagating to other clients, or in some cases forcing a client to revert to a snapshot (this can be a bit complex). That's an approach I've used in the past.
P2P generally means all clients can read all the data. Even if some data can be encrypted, it can then be deleted via a peer. Admittedly, I am conflating privacy and access control, and core to my point is that CRDTs are limited in many domains.
You can do this type of analysis for most software, since building on existing solutions allows us to write powerful tools with less code. Listing out the existing solutions that allow developers to write less code doesn't necessarily mean the new solution is bad.
Every time I read a post like this about Kubernetes, I scratch my head. It takes me maybe half a day to deploy a CI/CD pipeline pushing into a new Kubernetes cluster with persistent DB's, configuration management, auto-renewing SSL certs and autoscaling API/web servers per environment. I'm by no means an expert, but I've been running 10+ sites this way for various clients over the past five years, with almost zero headache and downtime.
When I compare this solution to the mishmash of previous technologies I used prior to Kubernetes, it clearly comes out on top (and I use/d Terraform religiously). Setting up automatic server provisioning, rolling updates, rollbacks, auto-scaling, continuous deployment, SSL, load balancing, configuration management, etc... requires an incredible amount of work. Kubernetes either provides most of these out of the box, or makes them trivial to implement.
The only way I understand this argument is if you're building an extremely simple application. The nice thing about simple applications is that you can build them using any technology you want, because they're simple. Despite this, I often Kubernetes anyways, because it's _so simple_ to take a Helm chart and update the image name.
For anyone interested in binary chess math:
https://www.chessprogramming.org/Bitboards#General_Bitboard_...