11–20 of 65 posts
We're not all Magnus Carlsen. Some of us are hacks or very ordinary 'players', and can be replace without a ripple on the pond.
How you will get experience to grow into the Magnus Carlsen of your field is an open question, however.
We're not all Magnus Carlsen. Some of us are hacks or very ordinary 'players', and can be replace without a ripple on the pond.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair point but Magnus wasn't born Magnus. He became world champion partly by doing what the article describes: using engines for post-game analysis. A 1200-rated chess player who reviews their games with an engine improves faster than one who doesn't.
If I'm understanding this right his ELO was 2064 in 2001 when he was 11. I don't think he was using engines for post-game analysis at 11 or maybe he was, but he was certainly born better at chess than most people. https://ratings.fide.com/profile/1503014/chart I love the original article. Hey guys you just have to be the best programmer in the world to not be replaced by AI!
I don't know you could go as far to say he was born better at chess, but he certainly seemed to be smart early on, and with his father's influence and with a supporting environment that smarts got aimed at chess.
We're not all Magnus Carlsen. Some of us are hacks or very ordinary 'players', and can be replace without a ripple on the pond.
Fair point but Magnus wasn't born Magnus. He became world champion partly by doing what the article describes: using engines for post-game analysis. A 1200-rated chess player who reviews their games with an engine improves faster than one who doesn't.
> Code review becomes your post-game analysis. Magnus reviews his games with engines to learn from their superior analysis. You review LLM code to ensure it's actually correct. If AI coding assistents really worked like Chess engines, they would review your code , pointing out issues and suggesting improvements.
I think it'd be fairly easy to create a project that uses an LLM to effectively review your code, if that what's you want. But personally I'd rather do the opposite, describe what sort of code I'm looking for, how it's supposed to work, and what the goal is, and then not having to do the actual typing itself.
We're not all Magnus Carlsen. Some of us are hacks or very ordinary 'players', and can be replace without a ripple on the pond.
everyone is the Magnus Carlsen of their own life, though. and humans are irreplaceable. sure, budget decisions are made that cause people to have to go find another employer. but there is no civilization without people in it.
If people wanted to see "perfect" chess they would be watching chess engine championships. These feature some of the deepest and most thought out moves ever performed in chess. They also get a few hundred live viewers.
Magnus is objectively an inferior player to top chess engines. If there was a technological problem that requires the best chess abilities, nobody would be paying Magnus to solve that problem, they would be using a chess engine.
The analogy does not work at all, because Magnus is not paid to be a good chess player in absolute terms, but a good chess player relative to other human top chess players.
Imagine if you will that chess engines don’t exist but apps do. A chess game company might employ a small army of excellent chess players to play games against their customers. You load up your app, request a medium difficulty game, and get connected with James, who’s playing 10 games at once for $20/hour. It’s a decent gig. Customers pay a fee for the experience but it’s worth it to them.
But now let’s say Google publishes a groundbreaking paper that lays out the foundation of an automated chess engine. Should James be worried about his job? Carlsen’s going to be fine. I’m not so sure about James.