211
Microsoft Copilot joins ChatGPT at the feet of the mighty Atari 2600 Video Chess
(www.theregister.com)
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
211 points (92.0% liked)
Technology
72354 readers
2841 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I bet Video Chess is pretty shit as an LLM too.
Wish people would stop desperately looking for ways to write buzzword stories
It is entirely disingenuous to just pretend that LLMs are not being widely promoted, marketed, and discussed as AGI, as a superintelligence that people are familiar with from SciFi shows/movies, that is vastly more capable and knowledgeable than basically any single human.
Yes, people who actually understand tech understand that LLMs are not AGI, that your metaphor of wrong tool wrong job is apt.
... But seemingly about +90% of humanity, including the people who own and profit from LLMs, including all the other business owners/managers who just want to lower their employee headcount ... do not understand this, that an LLM is actually basically an extremely advanced text autocorrect system, that frequently and confidently lies, spits out nonsense, hallucinates, etc.
If you think it isn't reasonable to continuously point out that LLMs are not superintelligences, then you likely live in a bubble of tech nerds who probably still think their jobs or retirement are secure.
They're not.
If corpos keep smashing """AI""" into basically every industry to replace as many workers as possible... the economy will collapse, as capitalism doesn't work without consumers who have jobs, and an avalanche of errors will cascade and snowball through every system that replaces humans with them...
...and even if those two things were not broadly true...
...the amount of literal power/energy, clean water and financial capital that is required to run the whole economy on these services is wildly unsustainable, both short term economically, and medium term ecologically.
That's true. But people pointing out that the whole attempt is absurd and senseless also reinforces the point that current AI isn't what companies tout it as.
Well, we are on Lemmy...
Fair point.
But we're on .world here, ie Reddit 2.0, ie, almost everyone is much closer to a normie who is way more uninformed than they think they are and way more confident than they should be.
But also, again... fair point.
so? It was never advertised as intelligent and capable of solving any task other than that one.
Meanwhile slop generators are capable of doing a lot of things and reasoning.
One claims to be good at chess. The other claims to be good at everything.
Tbf they don’t really claim that when you read the research, thats mostly media hype and ceo assholes spinning words.
Its good at lots specific tasks like rewriting emails and summarising gives text, short roleplay, boilerplate code. Some undiscovered uses.
Anthropic latest claims they would not hire their own ai because of how hard it failed at the test they give, They didnt do that expecting validation but to measure how far we are still off from ai doing meaningful full work.
Because the business leaders are famously diligent about putting aside the marketing push and reading into the nuance of the research instead.
TBF LLMs have no real purpose. It can generate word salads and make code snippets but its wildly unethical, and AI artworks 1/3rd shite and 2/3rds theft.
To be fair, that could be said of most art.
I'm sorry your life is so joyless and devoid of enjoyable art but its absolutely not true for the vast majority of us.
Oh, I enjoy lots of great art! But do you think I watch every film? Listen to every band? There's tons of shit out there!
Do you really believe, of all the songs that are written every day, that less than a third are crap? Even Taylor Swift doesn't publish everything she does. Sometimes you work on something for weeks and then end up tossing it in the bin. More often, you work on something for 30 minutes before deciding "I'm gonna start over, try something different". The majority of art is crap, but then you keep the stuff you think works.
And what's that expression, "good artists copy, great artists steal". I mean, that's a bit satirical, but the fact is, everything is derivative to some degree. It's not that there aren't new ideas, it's just that our new ideas are based on older ones. We stand on the shoulders of giants (or at least, on the shoulders of some people who came before us).
All I was really saying, was that the accusation "2 parts copying, 1 part crap", well honestly that's par for the course, that's how humans work. (And we do some great work that way).
Don't care didn't ask didn't read
You said regular art is 1/3 shite and 2/3 theft. Maybe math isn't your strong suit but that's 3/3 which is 100% so by claiming regular art is the same you're saying all art is either theft or shite.
It uh, it isn't.
I did say that, because this isn't a pie chart situation, it's a Venn diagram situation.
For instance, AI art is 99% theft and 60% garbage. It's both because there's overlap.
Stolen and bad aren't opposites, why would this be a dichotomy?
That's fine but regular art isn't 2/3 theft either.
I do buy the 1/3 shite though. It may even be a bit higher than that. Though beauty is in the eye of the beholder, etc.
It's a matter of taste for sure but I'd say AI art is >90% shite, 100% theft.
I don't like the glossy looking hyperreal shit it puts out at all.
So what you are saying is that it has a purpose. Also if an artist is inspired by another artist, and they have a generally similar art style as the artist they are inspired by, are they stealing? Was HP Lovecraft stealing from Lord Dunsany when he imitated his style? Where all those monks that transcribed Greek works stealing from the Greeks?
I will say that most AIs are unethical because they have been trained on pirated works. But an AI trained on publicly available works (ie news articles, blogs etc) and movies, books and music for which access to was paid for is as ethical as you or me emulating an artist or building on an idea that we read to create something new. And if that’s unethical then all human art in history is unethical because all artists are inspired by other artists, no one creates in a vacuum.
A. I does not create, it regurgitates and clarifies inspiration,? Sure anything can be used for inspiration. But unless a person puts hands and heart to it, it's not art.
Following a recipe on a box does not a chef makr
Art has no rules my man.
You can do all kinds of mental gymnastics you want but there’s no difference between an artist looking at Frank Frazetta’s art and basing their style off of it and an AI doing the same thing. You might not like it, but it’s the truth.
Do I think the art has the same value? Not necessarily. But I also never thought that all art has the same value. There has always been trash production line art and good art.
But also I have to say that I’ve already seen some people use AI as a tool for art and make some really cool stuff that I don’t think any other artist would have made and it’s more unique than most of the stuff out there. You can use it as the tool it is or complain and cry about it to no avail.
The chef example is especially good since most chefs are just following recipes and altering simply a few things here and there. AI essentially does the same thing. Honestly like no one has come up with a good argument to change my mind that the way AI operates is exactly how humans learn and create new things. If you’ve engaged in art you know that you are always imitating and taking from the art you consume to make your own.
Fuck that. I'll prove you wrong right now.
I want you to paint me picture of a cow in a field.
Did I do that,?
Nope. I commissioned you to.
Now if you the commissioned guy used a. I to make the item , how much credit should you get? None. .. describing what you want to a machine is a child's play game.
Humans adults create. Machines mimic.
Humans who think a. I is art are liars and con men afraid of being caught.
What you are describing has nothing to do with the tool. It’s dishonesty which is different.
The idea is that instead of commissioning the cow on the field, you go to the AI and ask it for that and it gives you a cow in the field. If you claim you made it, you are lying but that would be true even if you paid an artist and then claimed the same.
So with AI made art you’ll say “this art was made by an Ai” and no one will be confused as to who takes the credit, because it belongs to the algorithm.
Have you ever made art in your life? Because a big part of art is mimicking. Like 98% of it is mimicking. I draw, write and have dabbled in making music and playing instruments. You can’t learn these skills without mimicking. And most artists don’t ever do anything truly original, that’s a rarity and even when it happens you can trace the influences to other artists if you know how to look.
You could argue that AI has not developed its own style yet but that’s bullshit too imo because everyone knows the default AI art style when they see it, so that means that AI has a distinctive style. Is it unique? Maybe not, but neither is the art style of most artists or writers or even musicians.
Nope. Dishonesty is what is happening when I One conflates fine tuning an a. I prompt with art.
A.i is not art.
It's not. At all. It's tracing. Fine as a learning tool. Not art.
I literally said in exact words that it has no purpose.