On what are you basing your opinions?

For anyone interested in binary chess math:

https://www.chessprogramming.org/Bitboards#General_Bitboard_...

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.

> He literally used the same prompt as the article. > Claim: "ChatGPT's Chess Elo is 1400"

> Reality: ChatGPT gives illegal moves (this happened to article author too),

> something a 1400 ranked player would never do

> Result: ChatGPT's rank is not 1400.

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.

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.

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.

Have I overlooked something (highly likely)?

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.

Blockchains create a completely transparent, decentralized ledger. If you don't see any novelty or potential value in that, then that's fine. As far as life is concerned, one's opinion on blockchains should probably fall pretty low on the priority list. I suspect we at least agree on that.