4 ms·

As someone who’s never been able to appreciate or follow sports where a machine can be an order of magnitude better than a human, I would genuinely like to unde

As someone who’s never been able to appreciate or follow sports where a machine can be an order of magnitude better than a human, I would genuinely like to understand why people are enamored about such sports. In the end it seems like brilliant minds lost in math that’s not even novel anymore.. again everyone should do what they please, but this is just an academic question from someone unable to appreciate such skills or sports.

spoonjim 4y ago
Aren't machines better than humans at most sports? Hand off a football to an Abrams tank and it's not getting tackled on its way to the goal line.
- ramraj07 4y ago
  Absolutely. That’s why I’ve never been able to follow or watch any sport. Except maybe Ronny Sullivan playing snooker? Anyways the point is I have never been able to appreciate the value of sports as something you watch.
dane-pgp 4y ago
Would you say it doesn't make sense to appreciate art because cameras exist? Actually, with the advent of image generating AIs, such questions become more relevant.
- rglullis 4y ago
  Imagine a book, a ballet choreography, a movie entirely conceived and produced by an AI, which we collectively regard it as "art". Also imagine that, barring evidence of how the work was done, it is impossible for humans to distinguish if the work of art was produced by a human or an AI. Why should we, as "appreciators/consumers" of this art, care about how it was done? Do we think that a drawing made with the help with a computer "less artistic" than one drawn on paper? Also imagine that this AI is friendly and superhuman, and it is established that its works are aligned with our interests. All "art" produced by this AI inspires us to be better version of ourselves and enlighten us to help us solve our conflicts. In this scenario, why should we care about the work of one particular human vs another? The point that I am trying to make is that chess is already a reduced version of this hypothetical. Those that care about chess as a game will have little to learn by looking at humans. Those that want to improve their own game will do it by playing against/studying/interacting with the advancements in computers. There is very little left room for humans by themselves to show any new development in the game. As such, it seems to me that the ones interested in events related to human players are those who worry more about measuring humans against each other than in the game itself.
Macha 4y ago
Why care about racing when a motor vehicle can do travel at speed better, by that logic?
- bambax 4y ago
  Boxing vs. gun fight. Fencing vs. well, gun fight. Swimming vs. motorboats? Bobsleigh vs... gravity? In most sports it's possible to find a machine that does it better/faster, but sports are about humans measuring themselves against one another, not against a machine.
  - Ma8ee 4y ago
    There are still quite a bit of sports where machines can’t compete, like tennis or soccer.
    - nextlevelwizard 4y ago
      Only if you consider that the machine should act like a human player. We can definitely build machines that beat humans in both tennis and soccer every single time.
      - Ma8ee 4y ago
        How would that soccer player look? I don’t think we can build a machine that is good at soccer.
        swores 4y ago
        Once you remove the requirement that it look or act like a human, there's plenty of (pointless) ways you could make robots beat humans at football. A drone could pick up the ball and fly it into the goal without breaking the rules because the rules assume that to carry the ball it would need to touch your hands or arms (which the drone doesn't have). Build another robot that's the exact size of the goal, and too heavy to move off the goal line, hey presto the other team can't score. I think this line of thinking only makes sense if either you do require the robots to behave like humans (opposite of the comment you replied to), or by rewriting the rules of the game completely.
mstipetic 4y ago
That’s like saying why watch 100m sprint when we have formula 1.
Y-bar 4y ago
Why throw javelins when intercontinental missiles exists?
- KingMob 4y ago
  To be fair, athletes throwing ICBMs would really up the excitement of the Olympics.
  - MarioMan 4y ago
    Numan Athletics was an arcade game that played up this angle: https://youtu.be/X2K3hs7AUhQ https://youtu.be/X2K3hs7AUhQ
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
perihelions 4y ago
Why was that dog/bunny puzzle at the top of HN's frontpage yesterday? How were so many people entertained by it, when a computer could have solved it in microseconds? Humans like puzzle games, for some intrinsic reason. Chess is a very large and addictive puzzle.
TheRealNGenius 4y ago
walnutclosefarm 4y ago
I think competitive sports are and always have been about competition between humans, and I don't believe that the ability of a machine to play chess better than any human changes that, any more than the fact that, say, a hare can outsprint a human, or a horse outrun one in any middle distance, makes foot racing intrinsically uninteresting. In addition, humans enjoy playing games, and I think this extends to watching or following other humans who are better at it as a vicarious means of participating. A Saturday poker game with your crew is not diminished by the fact that everyone in the game would be slaughtered in a professional tournament, nor is the fun of watching said tournament diminished by that knowledge. I can enjoy a game of flag football with my family, and still enjoy an NFL Monday Night game, even though no one in my family would last 2 plays in the latter.

spoonjim 4y ago

Aren't machines better than humans at most sports? Hand off a football to an Abrams tank and it's not getting tackled on its way to the goal line.

ramraj07 4y ago
Absolutely. That’s why I’ve never been able to follow or watch any sport. Except maybe Ronny Sullivan playing snooker? Anyways the point is I have never been able to appreciate the value of sports as something you watch.

dane-pgp 4y ago

Would you say it doesn't make sense to appreciate art because cameras exist? Actually, with the advent of image generating AIs, such questions become more relevant.

rglullis 4y ago
Imagine a book, a ballet choreography, a movie entirely conceived and produced by an AI, which we collectively regard it as "art". Also imagine that, barring evidence of how the work was done, it is impossible for humans to distinguish if the work of art was produced by a human or an AI. Why should we, as "appreciators/consumers" of this art, care about how it was done? Do we think that a drawing made with the help with a computer "less artistic" than one drawn on paper? Also imagine that this AI is friendly and superhuman, and it is established that its works are aligned with our interests. All "art" produced by this AI inspires us to be better version of ourselves and enlighten us to help us solve our conflicts. In this scenario, why should we care about the work of one particular human vs another? The point that I am trying to make is that chess is already a reduced version of this hypothetical. Those that care about chess as a game will have little to learn by looking at humans. Those that want to improve their own game will do it by playing against/studying/interacting with the advancements in computers. There is very little left room for humans by themselves to show any new development in the game. As such, it seems to me that the ones interested in events related to human players are those who worry more about measuring humans against each other than in the game itself.

Macha 4y ago

Why care about racing when a motor vehicle can do travel at speed better, by that logic?

bambax 4y ago
Boxing vs. gun fight. Fencing vs. well, gun fight. Swimming vs. motorboats? Bobsleigh vs... gravity? In most sports it's possible to find a machine that does it better/faster, but sports are about humans measuring themselves against one another, not against a machine.
- Ma8ee 4y ago
  There are still quite a bit of sports where machines can’t compete, like tennis or soccer.
  - nextlevelwizard 4y ago
    Only if you consider that the machine should act like a human player. We can definitely build machines that beat humans in both tennis and soccer every single time.
    - Ma8ee 4y ago
      How would that soccer player look? I don’t think we can build a machine that is good at soccer.
      - swores 4y ago
        Once you remove the requirement that it look or act like a human, there's plenty of (pointless) ways you could make robots beat humans at football. A drone could pick up the ball and fly it into the goal without breaking the rules because the rules assume that to carry the ball it would need to touch your hands or arms (which the drone doesn't have). Build another robot that's the exact size of the goal, and too heavy to move off the goal line, hey presto the other team can't score. I think this line of thinking only makes sense if either you do require the robots to behave like humans (opposite of the comment you replied to), or by rewriting the rules of the game completely.

mstipetic 4y ago

That’s like saying why watch 100m sprint when we have formula 1.

Y-bar 4y ago

Why throw javelins when intercontinental missiles exists?

KingMob 4y ago
To be fair, athletes throwing ICBMs would really up the excitement of the Olympics.
- MarioMan 4y ago
  Numan Athletics was an arcade game that played up this angle: https://youtu.be/X2K3hs7AUhQ https://youtu.be/X2K3hs7AUhQ

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

perihelions 4y ago

Why was that dog/bunny puzzle at the top of HN's frontpage yesterday? How were so many people entertained by it, when a computer could have solved it in microseconds? Humans like puzzle games, for some intrinsic reason. Chess is a very large and addictive puzzle.

TheRealNGenius 4y ago

walnutclosefarm 4y ago

I think competitive sports are and always have been about competition between humans, and I don't believe that the ability of a machine to play chess better than any human changes that, any more than the fact that, say, a hare can outsprint a human, or a horse outrun one in any middle distance, makes foot racing intrinsically uninteresting. In addition, humans enjoy playing games, and I think this extends to watching or following other humans who are better at it as a vicarious means of participating. A Saturday poker game with your crew is not diminished by the fact that everyone in the game would be slaughtered in a professional tournament, nor is the fun of watching said tournament diminished by that knowledge. I can enjoy a game of flag football with my family, and still enjoy an NFL Monday Night game, even though no one in my family would last 2 plays in the latter.