If AI is better at chess and can implement chess strategies that can reliably beat any other human, why can't it make better strategic decisions in real geopolitical situations? I don't see how they are fundamentally different.
Chess mostly boils down to a mathematical optimization problem within a fixed, predetermined rulset, with predefined success and failure conditions.
Geopolitical decisions involve pursuing outcomes in situations involving far more variables, often changing in realtime due to factors outside the "game board", where the rules are complex, mutable, and not necessarily known in advance, and where the success and failure conditions are subjective and may themselves change during the course of the scenario.
Geopolitical situations are Chess, Nomic, and Werewolf all rolled into one. How good is AI at winning all of these games?
llms are in fact, not better than traditional chess engines at chess. most benchmarks that llms are trained for are coding, math and science benchmarks, that's why performance tends to be spikey
