Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you

coding-with-ai.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 65 posts

Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you

#31

Post by Retric »

codeclimber wrote: post #25
dchftcs wrote: post #10

This 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.

Productivity replaces people, if you get more done from a team of 5 than your old team of 10 you generally fire 5 people.

Programmers have significantly higher unemployment than the general workforce today, but it’s hitting a wide swath of white collar jobs and that’s not going away. The industrial revolution replaced manual labor, so people moved to more mentally challenging jobs but AI can eventually replace anybody from CEO’s on down.

Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you

#32

Post by haunter »

Mildly OT: but which one is the best (offline) frontend for Stockfish? Or just what do HN people use? There are so many options [0] from free to paid I wish there was a big comparison table somewhere

https://official-stockfish.github.io/docs/stockfish-wiki/Dow...

Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you

#33

Post by bdcravens »

itsnowandnever wrote: post #11
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #2

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.

> budget decisions are made that cause people to have to go find another employer

When those decisions are made en masse, incomes and even chosen careers can change dramatically. This is true even when there isn't massive changes in technology. I started my career during the time when many ended up leaving tech and not returning due to how competitive the job market became.

Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you

#34

Post by stackghost »

It wasn't that long ago that if you worked at an engineering firm, you needed a whole floor or floors of skilled draftsmen to produce the engineering drawings of your bridge, or your widget. Now an intern can do that in seconds with modern CAD software.

The same phenomenon is already occurring with AI. The concern is not that it will replace people, it's that it will make people so productive that it will create an oversupply of workers and thus kill a lot of jobs.

Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you

#35

Post by boredtofears »

Retric wrote: post #31
codeclimber wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Productivity replaces people, if you get more done from a team of 5 than your old team of 10 you generally fire 5 people. Programmers have significantly higher unemployment than the general workforce today, but it’s hitting a wide swath of white collar jobs and that’s not going away. The industrial revolution replaced manual labor, so people moved to more mentally challenging jobs but AI can eventually replace anybod…

Or you keep your team of 10 and produce more things.

Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you

#36

Post by Retric »

boredtofears wrote: post #35
Retric wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Productivity replaces people, if you get more done from a team of 5 than your old team of 10 you generally fire 5 people. Programmers have significantly higher unemployment than the general workforce today, but it’s hitting a wide swath of white collar jobs and that’s not going away. The industrial revolution replaced manual labor, so people moved to more mentally challenging jobs but AI can eventually replace anybod…

Or you keep your team of 10 and produce more things.

Demand isn’t doubling economy wide any time soon. So you might keep a team of 10 if you’re outcompeting a different team of 10 and getting all of them fired.

Even if you’re keeping your job expect huge downward pressure on wages.

Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you

#37

Post by cluckindan »

haunter wrote: post #32

Mildly OT: but which one is the best (offline) frontend for Stockfish? Or just what do HN people use? There are so many options [0] from free to paid I wish there was a big comparison table somewhere https://official-stockfish.github.io/docs/stockfish-wiki/Dow...

https://github.com/mbiesiad/awesome-chess

Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you

#38

Post by measurablefunc »

bzalasky wrote: post #29

One 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 qu…

Chess is a closed system w/ finitely many rules. I don't think success in closed domains transfers to open ones & this is the usual error optimists are making about AI & its success in closed domains like chess. Continuous learning is necessary for open domains b/c real world distributions are constantly changing & unless deployed systems can keep up w/ the changes their performance will continuously degrade until they're worse than random. Chess has been the same for millenia & that's why chess is essentially solved.

Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you

#40

Post by harimau777 »

itsnowandnever wrote: post #11
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #2

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.

It's a big problem if they can't find another employer fast enough or if the new employer doesn't pay enough.
Post reply on HN