51–60 of 65 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
I remember this was a topic in early 2010's and then it was said that the human team member was already not contributing much anymore. In a blitz game it would most likely be detrimental.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I've never worked at a place where I have any shortage of work to do. Usually the roadmap is several years out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Magnus's peak rating was 2882. Stockfish is currently rated 3644. Lc0/AlphaZero was estimated to be rated 3800. Stockfish would destroy Magnus even with queen odds.
Who would you rather play: Magnus or Stockfish? And what made him inferior again?
With him being human, there's a 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% chance that he might miss something or miscalculate deep into a game.
With Stockfish, those odds are quite literally 0%.
Magnus could make a mistake. Stockfish is literally programmed to not make a mistake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who would you rather play: Magnus or Stockfish? And what made him inferior again?
Magnus. With him being human, there's a 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% chance that he might miss something or miscalculate deep into a game. With Stockfish, those odds are quite literally 0%. Magnus could make a mistake. Stockfish is literally programmed to not make a mistake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Magnus. With him being human, there's a 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% chance that he might miss something or miscalculate deep into a game. With Stockfish, those odds are quite literally 0%. Magnus could make a mistake. Stockfish is literally programmed to not make a mistake.
So you would enjoy playing Magnus more than playing Stockfish. Because it would actually give you a chance. And that's the whole point of playing games: to enjoy them, and to both have a chance at winning, even if that chances is remote. Stockfish takes that joy away. For me, that makes Magnus far superior to Stockfish. If I want to lose a game playing with myself I'll play solitaire. Or better yet, I'll go read a bo…
Oh, no, I wouldn't enjoy playing him more. I'd enjoy playing Stockfish infinitely more because I could learn new strategies from it. Knowing you're going to lose allows you to learn from all moves and all mistakes.
Against Magnus, I'd have no chance. I'm barely over a 2000 rating. Magnus could play with queen odds and drunk off his ass while blindfolded and would wipe the floor with me.
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.
I've updated the post title to "Train with coding assistants like Magnus Carlsen trains with chess engines" to focus on the main point: the methodology. Magnus uses chess engines as sparring-partners to improve his game after matches. Same can be done by developers who will use coding assistants to level up their skills.
Thanks for calling this out.
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.
I am not worried about AI replacing the best of the best any time soon, I’m worried about it replacing the fair to middling…relatively soon.