4 ms·
The comparisons with Chess are frivolous. Chess players don't depend on fighting stockfish/Alphazero for their livelihood. Chess players had to do nothing when
by crop_rotation 4y ago
The comparisons with Chess are frivolous. Chess players don't depend on fighting stockfish/Alphazero for their livelihood. Chess players had to do nothing when Stockfish/Alphazero got better than them (except incorporating them during practice maybe). People still want to only watch humans playing chess. There is no market for AI v AI match.
The Chess players can not be replaced by AI regardless of how well the AI plays. So the comparison is meaningless.
- brigadier132 4y ago> So the comparison is meaningless It's not meaningless when the primary argument against AI is that people derive "purpose" from their work. If AI gets us to a zero scarcity society the entire idea of working for a "livelihood" is "frivolous" as you like to put it.
- crop_rotation 4y agoThe comparison to chess is still meaningless, even if that was the only argument that "people derive "purpose" from their work". The work of Chess players never was competing against an AI. From the point of view of Chess players not much changed. No tournament allows Stockfish/AlphaZero to compete. The AI is not allowed to do their work in any capacity. And this is all not even mentioning that the number of chess professionals who play chess it so small compared to things that can impact humanity, that it is irrelevant whatever happens in the chess world. So saying that chess was fine even though AI can beat players, is a statement which is true yet has no relation with tools which might impact all of humanity and will have real impact.