https://www.timeextension.com/news/2025/06/openais-chatgpt-lost-a-game-of-chess-against-the-48-year-old-atari-2600

>As reported by Extreme Tech, Citrix Engineer Robert Caruso recently pitted OpenAI's ChatGPT 4o model against Atari's 1979 Video Chess cartridge on the Atari 2600, and even on the easiest setting, ChatGPT got its ass handed to it on a plate.

>"ChatGPT got absolutely wrecked on the beginner level," said Caruso. "Despite being given a baseline board layout to identify pieces, ChatGPT confused rooks for bishops, missed pawn forks, and repeatedly lost track of where pieces were—first blaming the Atari icons as too abstract to recognize, then faring no better even after switching to standard chess notation."

>The match lasted an hour and a half, and at one point, Caruso even stepped in to assist ChatGPT because it was doing so badly. "Meanwhile, Atari’s humble 8-bit engine just did its thing," adds Caruso. "No language model. No flash. Just brute-force board evaluation and 1977 stubbornness. For 90 minutes, I had to stop it from making awful moves and correct its board awareness multiple times per turn. It kept promising it would improve “if we just started over.” Eventually, even ChatGPT knew it was beat — and conceded with its head hung low."

Have you played Atari today?

where is the video of this? It sounds made up

Imagine if AI tried to play ET. It would probably fall down the first hole, come to the conclusion that it does nothing to progress the game, and get stuck worse than fucking James Rolfe.

>>712467956 (OP)
Lol, yeah okay, let's see it beat Stockfish or something. CHATGPT wasn't designed for this application.

>>712468241
Imagine if AI tried to play Pokemon. It'd probably walk around in circles and repeatedly to talk the NPCs for hours.

No way. A model that is wrong 60% of the time when asked for something whose answer is in the training data can't do basic things correctly?

>>712468095
It sounds accurate. ChatGPT isn't a strategic engine, and even old chess engines like that can give novice players hell.

It's just a matter of knowing the formula that works. There's a reason the dealer wins most of the time at a blackjack table.

>>712467956 (OP)
is this surprising to anyone? I asked chatgpt for a list of books by an author recently and it made them all up. It's a schizophrenia simulator. I do not understand it's purpose.

>>712467956 (OP)
ChatGPT is a piece of shit that's only good for generating slop for low IQ individuals.

>>712468597
the blackjack dealer has an advantage in the rules you fucking mongoloid. they don't win more because they hire card sharks as dealers

>>712468729
How do the dealer have an advantage? Not trying to be mean or anything, I don't gamble so I barely know how the game works.

>>712468530
It sounds fake if he doesn't show any evidence.

>>712468895
because the dealer goes second and wins if the player busts. its rigged as fuck.

>>712469173
So if the player loses first on their turn, they don't have to draw and just wins?

I mean "the house always wins" is a thing for a reason, so makes sense they would have the advantage.

>>712469426
yes
Also if it's a draw, the dealer wins. house advantage is literally how gambling works as a business. It's not a charity for fun time games holy fuck

>>712468895
All casino games (except poker) are stacked against the player. Even when someone wins big, the odds are they're going to either keep playing and lose it again, or someone else will offset it.
Poker is different because it's a game you can actually control if you know how to play it well. That's why the dealer at a poker table never plays against the patrons. They rake the pots for a percentage between hands.
>>712469426
Yes. The dealer is guaranteed to have a non-bust hand at the outset, and you only see their up card. Even if they have like a 2/3 hand total, if you bust out, they win.
>>712469560
Draw is called a push. Your bet stays.

>>712469560
on a draw in blackjack its a bump

>>712467956 (OP)
>raft btfos ferrari at swimming
retard

>>712469716
Maybe they should stop trying to make machine learning a can do everything technology then, and start only using it for what it actually works for.

If the people selling ai wants it to take over everything, they better prove that it can at the very least stack up to a 50 year old computer.

>>712469981
I don't think anyone's AI model to date has the knowledge of even old chess engines, let alone something like Fritz/Junior/Shredder. It seemed more like a "can AI reason its way through a comparatively easy game?"

>>712469560
Oh so you have no fucking idea what you're talking about but call others retards.
Got it.

>>712470431
that anon didn't call anyone a retard. you replied to the wrong post, retard.