Crazy cope lately , understandable human emotions though
Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
21–30 of 65 posts
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#22This is a poor analogy. Magnus Carlsen stays because chess consumers decide to pay for humans even though they are inferior to Stockfish. BigCorp will always pick machine over you if they can.
> even though they are inferior to Stockfish
They're not.
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#23This is a poor analogy. Magnus Carlsen stays because chess consumers decide to pay for humans even though they are inferior to Stockfish. BigCorp will always pick machine over you if they can.
> BigCorp will always pick machine over you if they can.
But, people might not always prefer BigCorp over humans, if they can?
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#24This is a poor analogy. Magnus Carlsen stays because chess consumers decide to pay for humans even though they are inferior to Stockfish. BigCorp will always pick machine over you if they can.
> even though they are inferior to Stockfish They're not.
With respect to winning a game of chess?
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#25This is a poor analogy. Magnus Carlsen stays because chess consumers decide to pay for humans even though they are inferior to Stockfish. BigCorp will always pick machine over you if they can.
Companies automate the parts that are commodity. On messy product work (drifting specs, integration, liability), human + AI + good process > AI alone. The machine proposes; the human sets goals, constrains risk, writes/reads tests. That combo ships faster and with fewer costly mistakes than letting an ai free-run.
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#26Magnus Carlsen is a performer . 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…
> Magnus Carlsen is a performer.
Not everything that draws a crowd is a performance. I suspect Magnus Carlsen would play chess even if nobody watched. Just look at Mikhail Tal, Max Euwe, Garry Kasparov and all those others. None of them did it because of the crowds. They did it because the game itself fascinated them.
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#27This is a poor analogy. Magnus Carlsen stays because chess consumers decide to pay for humans even though they are inferior to Stockfish. BigCorp will always pick machine over you if they can.
Yeah. Coding is not a sport. Even if it is (Leetcode competitions or something), as in chess, it is the top 100 or so that can make money and survive.
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#28Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#29One thing that might not be apparent to non-chess players is that an experienced human (particularly a GM or Super-GM) with an engine can often beat the same engine or another engine that lacks human assistance. There are some positions, particularly in closed games where this can become more of a factor. It'll be interesting to see if a similar logic plays out in other fields. I imagine that some companies may be quick to automate away roles to save money, however, if you follow what we've learned about chess, there's likely an opportunity to make a bet (start a company) on AI-assistance outperforming full AI automation in some domains.
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
> Carlsen showed an aptitude for intellectual challenges at a young age. At two years, he could solve 50-piece jigsaw puzzles; at four, he enjoyed assembling Lego sets with instructions intended for children aged 10–14. His father, a keen amateur chess player, taught him to play at the age of five, although he initially showed little interest in it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Carlsen#Childhood I don't know y…
Some people have that talent, others do not. And then those who do have that talent and put in the hours studying theory can go very far without ever looking at a computer to help them with analysis.
Carlsen is that once-per-generation exception, someone who has a talent that somehow allows him to see a little further down the game tree than others. I grew up next to someone who was nearly that good, but there are so many people in that bracket that outside of NL he's not very well known. The distribution of skill at the high end of chess is highly non-linear.