Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If the NN learns the game, that is itself an existence proof of the opposite, (by obvious information-theoretic arguments).

Training is supervised, so you don't need bare sets of moves to encode the rules; you just need a way of subsetting the space into contrast classes of valid/invalid.

It's a lie to say the "data" is the moves, the data is the full outcome space: ({legal moves}, {illegal moves}) where the moves are indexed by the board structure (necessarily, since moves are defined by the board structure -- its an abstract game). So there's two deceptions here: (1) supervision structures the training space; and (2) the individual training rows have sequential structure which maps to board structure.

Complete information about the game is provided to the NN.

But let's be clear, the othellogpt still generates illegal moves -- showing that it does not learn the binary conditional structure of the actual game.

The deceptiveness of training a NN on a game whose rules are conditional probability structures and then claiming the very-good-quality conditional probability structures it finds are "World Models" is... maddening.

This is all just fraud to me; frauds dressing up other frauds in transparent clothing. LLMs trained on the internet are being sold as approximating the actual world, not 8x8 boardgames. I have nothing polite to say about any of this



> It's a lie to say the "data" is the moves, the data is the full outcome space: ({legal moves}, {illegal moves})

There is nothing about illegal moves provided to othellogpt as far as I'm aware.

> Complete information about the game is provided to the NN.

That is not true. Where is the information that there are two players provided? Or that there are two colours? Or how the colours change? Where is the information about invalid moves provided?

> But let's be clear, the othellogpt still generates illegal moves -- showing that it does not learn the binary conditional structure of the actual game.

Not perfectly, no. But that's not at all required for my point, though is relevant if you try and use the fact it learns to play the game as proof that moves provide all information about legal board states.


How do you think the moves are represented?

All abstract games of this sort are just sequences of bit patterns, each pattern related to the full legal space by a conditional probability structure (or, equivalently, as set ratios).

Strip away all the NN b/s and anthropomorphic language and just represent it to yourself using bit sets.

Then ask: how hard is it to approximate the space from which these bit sets are drawn using arbitrarily deep conditional probability structures?

it's trivial

the problem the author sets up about causal structures in the world cannot be represented as a finite sample of bit set sequences -- and even if it could, that isnt the data being used

the author hasn't understood the basics of what the 'world model' problem even is




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: