If AI coding assistents really worked like Chess engines, they would review your code, pointing out issues and suggesting improvements.
Both teach something new.
I think it'd be fairly easy to create a project that uses an LLM to effectively review your code, if that what's you want. But personally I'd rather do the opposite, describe what sort of code I'm looking for, how it's supposed to work, and what the goal is, and then not having to do the actual typing itself.
They're not.
Stockfish is currently rated 3644.
Lc0/AlphaZero was estimated to be rated 3800.
Stockfish would destroy Magnus even with queen odds.
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.
But Stockfish is not going to beat Magnus with queen odds. Nakamura has beaten Lc0 with knight odds in blitz (though he got crushed overall), and queen odds in bullet, all while chatting on stream. And fast time controls favor computers simply because they're practically impossible to flag and will almost never miss a tactical idea.
But, people might not always prefer BigCorp over humans, if they can?
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.
Even if you’re keeping your job expect huge downward pressure on wages.
How you will get experience to grow into the Magnus Carlsen of your field is an open question, however.
If people wanted to see "perfect" chess they would be watching chess engine championships. These feature some of the deepest and most thought out moves ever performed in chess. They also get a few hundred live viewers.
Magnus is objectively an inferior player to top chess engines. If there was a technological problem that requires the best chess abilities, nobody would be paying Magnus to solve that problem, they would be using a chess engine.
The analogy does not work at all, because Magnus is not paid to be a good chess player in absolute terms, but a good chess player relative to other human top chess players.
Not everything that draws a crowd is a performance. I suspect Magnus Carlsen would play chess even if nobody watched. Just look at Mikhail Tal, Max Euwe, Garry Kasparov and all those others. None of them did it because of the crowds. They did it because the game itself fascinated them.
Maybe, but it wouldn't be his job then.
Imagine if you will that chess engines don’t exist but apps do. A chess game company might employ a small army of excellent chess players to play games against their customers. You load up your app, request a medium difficulty game, and get connected with James, who’s playing 10 games at once for $20/hour. It’s a decent gig. Customers pay a fee for the experience but it’s worth it to them.
But now let’s say Google publishes a groundbreaking paper that lays out the foundation of an automated chess engine. Should James be worried about his job? Carlsen’s going to be fine. I’m not so sure about James.
From my understanding the AlphaZero based engines (i.e. neural nets) do not really benefit from having a human in the loop.
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.
https://official-stockfish.github.io/docs/stockfish-wiki/Dow...
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.
JoeAltmaier•4h ago
v3am•3h ago
Mistletoe•2h ago
https://ratings.fide.com/profile/1503014/chart
I love the original article. Hey guys you just have to be the best programmer in the world to not be replaced by AI!
CaptainOfCoit•2h ago
I don't know you could go as far to say he was born better at chess, but he certainly seemed to be smart early on, and with his father's influence and with a supporting environment that smarts got aimed at chess.
jacquesm•2h ago
Carlsen is that once-per-generation exception, someone who has a talent that somehow allows him to see a little further down the game tree than others. I grew up next to someone who was nearly that good, but there are so many people in that bracket that outside of NL he's not very well known. The distribution of skill at the high end of chess is highly non-linear.
whyenot•2h ago
itsnowandnever•2h ago
bdcravens•2h ago
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.
harimau777•2h ago
gdulli•1h ago
ourmandave•2h ago