3 ms·

> human-machine cooperation is probably where the big money will be The sceptical counterargument to that, which I go back and forth on, is "that's what they s

by adw 9y ago

> human-machine cooperation is probably where the big money will be The sceptical counterargument to that, which I go back and forth on, is "that's what they said about chess". There was a transitional period when this was true, then the engines disappeared into the middle distance. I work on the hunch that the middle-ground of tasks where humans improve on, or with, machines is both small and unpredictable; computers will tend towards being either useless or strongly superhuman for each problem.

Barrin92 9y ago
this is still true in chess. Humans use chess computers to play the game of chess. The tournament money still goes to humans, everybody still cares about the world's best players, and so forth. Even as chess engines vastly have surpassed humans in technical capability, they haven't somehow sidelined humans in all aspects of the domain. Not even literally in competitive games. It's not like everybody has somehow switched to watching engine games. That is in fact just a niche market of the chess world. We are humans and as such we still enjoy seeing real humans thrive and compete in chess more than we care about machines. If anything chess is the perfect example that the pessimism is misplaced, chess engines have not killed chess as a human endeavour.
- robotresearcher 9y ago
  But the purpose of chess is taking part and having fun. The purpose of finance is making money. The comparison is weird. No one will give their money to someone to manage for fun if an AI could make more money.
- Noos 9y ago
  I don't agree. I feel that chess engines have killed chess as a pastime that people play. I know growing up in the 80s I played it during lunch at school, and schools had chess clubs which really weren't on the order of forming neophyte pros, but just students who liked the game. But now it's rather futile to play it, because at some point you'll run up against a machine that can outplay you perfectly. I mean, before you could play a grandmaster or something, but the moment you or someone else for you buys a ten-dollar chess program, you realize that despite improvement, the computer will always defeat you. I don't really see chess as that big any more in the public eye. The kids might play Minecraft, which rewards human creativity and doesn't really force you to compete against an A.I. optimized to beat 99% of all Minecraft players.
- adw 9y ago
  As a sport, yes. We do the same with the 100m dash, and there is no-one anywhere who would employ humans based on the business utility of being to run 100 metres fast outside of entertainment. Pro chess is in the entertainment business; the strength of the players isn't really material to that. You're confusing the economics of recreation and entertainment with the economics of efficiently making things. They both exist, but they're very different.

by adw 9y ago

Barrin92 9y ago

this is still true in chess. Humans use chess computers to play the game of chess. The tournament money still goes to humans, everybody still cares about the world's best players, and so forth. Even as chess engines vastly have surpassed humans in technical capability, they haven't somehow sidelined humans in all aspects of the domain. Not even literally in competitive games. It's not like everybody has somehow switched to watching engine games. That is in fact just a niche market of the chess world. We are humans and as such we still enjoy seeing real humans thrive and compete in chess more than we care about machines. If anything chess is the perfect example that the pessimism is misplaced, chess engines have not killed chess as a human endeavour.

robotresearcher 9y ago
But the purpose of chess is taking part and having fun. The purpose of finance is making money. The comparison is weird. No one will give their money to someone to manage for fun if an AI could make more money.
Noos 9y ago
I don't agree. I feel that chess engines have killed chess as a pastime that people play. I know growing up in the 80s I played it during lunch at school, and schools had chess clubs which really weren't on the order of forming neophyte pros, but just students who liked the game. But now it's rather futile to play it, because at some point you'll run up against a machine that can outplay you perfectly. I mean, before you could play a grandmaster or something, but the moment you or someone else for you buys a ten-dollar chess program, you realize that despite improvement, the computer will always defeat you. I don't really see chess as that big any more in the public eye. The kids might play Minecraft, which rewards human creativity and doesn't really force you to compete against an A.I. optimized to beat 99% of all Minecraft players.
adw 9y ago
As a sport, yes. We do the same with the 100m dash, and there is no-one anywhere who would employ humans based on the business utility of being to run 100 metres fast outside of entertainment. Pro chess is in the entertainment business; the strength of the players isn't really material to that. You're confusing the economics of recreation and entertainment with the economics of efficiently making things. They both exist, but they're very different.