Re:Why I'm still bearish on LLMs after navier-stokes
by harimau777 on Tuesday September 15, 2026 @07:44PM
(#49720372)
It seems like an LLM potentially could learn that way if each practice game it participated in was added to its training data.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why I'm still bearish on LLMs after navier-stokes
by willmarch on Tuesday September 15, 2026 @08:43PM
(#49720777)
Yes, this is essentially how AlphaGo and AlphaZero algorithms work to train superhuman Go/chess/shogi agents. It’s an elegant algorithm that is analogous to how humans learn games.
Re:Why I'm still bearish on LLMs after navier-stokes
by zug_zug on Tuesday September 15, 2026 @10:18PM
(#49721393)
Well except AlphaZero played 44 million chess games in that time (and actually played with a 44 core computer). So I'd like to point out that the human is still just a few orders of magnitude more efficient.
Re:Why I'm still bearish on LLMs after navier-stokes
by willmarch on Tuesday September 15, 2026 @10:28PM
(#49721454)
Yes, we all know that biological systems are more efficient than machines through billions of years of evolution and natural selection but the overall process is largely the same (interacting with an environment, learning from results, improving underlying architecture, etc); efficiencies will come with more time and improvements.
Re:Why I'm still bearish on LLMs after navier-stokes
by zug_zug on Wednesday September 16, 2026 @11:20AM
(#49728410)
Well if we make AI that learns at the rates humans do, it'll fundamentally undermine and destroy the relevance of all existing AI. It sounds to me like you're saying "we basically are there it's just a matter of degree" and I'm saying "No it's orders of magnitude off and probably won't be using LLMs at all and maybe a very fundamentally different type of neural net technology that hasn't been invented yet."