Who will the singularity eat first?

[Aqua Letifer]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

Something I've found quite intriguing is what's happened to chess. The AI can now play chess to a level that is completely unattainable for humans. In the past people said that this would be the death of the game.

The opposite has happened. Covid, online streaming and online play have probably made it more popular than it's ever been. Coupled with the fact that you can have the strongest player on the planet analyse your games for free.

Let's hope humans can figure out how to do the same with other endeavours being taken over by the machines.

Are most people making money off of those online streaming chess games?

However, yes, your overall point is very true. Unfortunately, people who:

• listen to music as a distraction
• buy prints just to add color to their eggshell walls
• read books only to kill time on flights
• watch Netflix to kill time

will welcome this shit with open arms. And that's mostly everybody. But to the few who actually like music, paintings, books and movies, things made only by people will become even more valuable.

It's just that that will be a minority exception in the marketplace. Most of the shit will be completely done by AI, with halfassed minor adjustments made in a pathetic attempt to humanize aggregate mass-produced content.

[Jolly]

@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

But his overall argument is ridiculous. Journos are safe because they have the ear of legislators? Bro, journos don't have billions in lobbying money. Companies, who stand to save a fuckton of money by firing journos, do.

We're not even close to ready to handle this technological change. It's not that scribes will be unemployed. It's that the profession will go the way of gas lamplighting. And this goes far beyond writers, artists and coders. AI can balance books, grade essays, negotiate contracts, analyze X-rays and provide mental health services.

How much "news" of the day is fed to the media vs. how much news is investigative reporting?

[Aqua Letifer]

@Horace said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

It'll be interesting to hear, say, novel songs in the style of the Beatles, written by an AI.

It'll also be interesting to wonder whether our favorite artists are being ghost written by AIs.

Maybe the real stars will be the people who customize and own proprietary AIs, which produce exceptional human-influenced AI content.

We're going to get tired of that pretty quickly, though. The real stars will be the ones who do everything themselves and absolutely kick ass at it.

Another important note about the arts: every single time there has been a tidal shift, it's come from outsiders whom the establishment tried to first stamp out. Then, once they gained footing, they were incorporated into the mainstream and everyone acted as if they'd always been there.

• Shepard Fairey got into trouble as a kid trespassing and vandalizing buildings with his graffiti. Then he was hired to make the Obama poster.
• Many pearl-clutching parents tried to get the Beatles and the Stones off the air. Now we have Sir Mick and Sir Paul.
• Elvis was vilified. Then, amazingly, he was invited by Nixon to speak out against drug use. (And ironically, yes, he was high at the time.)
• Dozens and dozens of literary classics taught in academic programs today were banned in their time for being too subervsive
• Impressionists were vilified for being illegitimate radicals, and now they're the favorite among white women who buy calendars the world over.

AI will be part of the establishment. So yes, the jobs are going to go away, but that's not where the important innovations are going to come from.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Jolly said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

But his overall argument is ridiculous. Journos are safe because they have the ear of legislators? Bro, journos don't have billions in lobbying money. Companies, who stand to save a fuckton of money by firing journos, do.

We're not even close to ready to handle this technological change. It's not that scribes will be unemployed. It's that the profession will go the way of gas lamplighting. And this goes far beyond writers, artists and coders. AI can balance books, grade essays, negotiate contracts, analyze X-rays and provide mental health services.

How much "news" of the day is fed to the media vs. how much news is investigative reporting?

Depends on the platform.

Publishing companies and other businesses? All fed.
Medium, Substack articles, the right YouTube channels? A lot of that's very much old-school.

[Jolly]

Hey, I like Impressionism art.

And I don't identify as a woman.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Jolly said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

Hey, I like Impressionism art.

And I don't identify as a woman.

Fair enough. One of its features is that it's very accessible. Which was missing in a lot of mainstream art at that time. Another contributing factor to impressionism's popularity.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

Are most people making money off of those online streaming chess games?

Obviously not. People generally don't play chess for money, unless they're Magnus Carlson - even he doesn't play for money - his wealth is just a fortunate by-product of his ability.

But some folk are. Hikaru Nakamura is undoubtedly making a lot more money from his streaming endeavours then he ever did as a top Grandmaster. And Danny Rensch wouldn't have made a red cent out of chess in the old days based on his playing strength, but is probably doing very nicely out of chess.com

[Aqua Letifer]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

Are most people making money off of those online streaming chess games?

Obviously not. People generally don't play chess for money, unless they're Magnus Carlson - even he doesn't play for money - his wealth is just a fortunate by-product of his ability.

But some folk are. Hikaru Nakamura is undoubtedly making a lot more money from his streaming endeavours then he ever did as a top Grandmaster. And Danny Rensch wouldn't have made a red cent out of chess in the old days based on his playing strength, but is probably doing very nicely out of chess.com

Yeah, my point was only that "there's a lot of activity" and "more popular than ever before" are very different things from "earning enough money on which to live." (Although yes, I'm glad the interest has gone up. I blame Queen's Gambit.)

[Doctor Phibes]

@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

Are most people making money off of those online streaming chess games?

Obviously not. People generally don't play chess for money, unless they're Magnus Carlson - even he doesn't play for money - his wealth is just a fortunate by-product of his ability.

But some folk are. Hikaru Nakamura is undoubtedly making a lot more money from his streaming endeavours then he ever did as a top Grandmaster. And Danny Rensch wouldn't have made a red cent out of chess in the old days based on his playing strength, but is probably doing very nicely out of chess.com

Yeah, my point was only that "there's a lot of activity" and "more popular than ever before" are very different things from "earning enough money on which to live." (Although yes, I'm glad the interest has gone up. I blame Queen's Gambit.)

It's also worth noting that the amount of innovation that has been introduced to the game is significant - there have been a lot of ideas and new ways of looking at the game introduced by Alphazero that have been adopted by human players.

If we're smart, we could conceivably do something similar with the arts. Not that we have a history of being smart when money's involved. As a species we're more likely to go the anal bead route.

[Horace]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

Are most people making money off of those online streaming chess games?

Obviously not. People generally don't play chess for money, unless they're Magnus Carlson - even he doesn't play for money - his wealth is just a fortunate by-product of his ability.

But some folk are. Hikaru Nakamura is undoubtedly making a lot more money from his streaming endeavours then he ever did as a top Grandmaster. And Danny Rensch wouldn't have made a red cent out of chess in the old days based on his playing strength, but is probably doing very nicely out of chess.com

Yeah, my point was only that "there's a lot of activity" and "more popular than ever before" are very different things from "earning enough money on which to live." (Although yes, I'm glad the interest has gone up. I blame Queen's Gambit.)

It's also worth noting that the amount of innovation that has been introduced to the game is significant - there have been a lot of ideas and new ways of looking at the game introduced by Alphazero that have been adopted by human players.

Like new openings? Do the computers substantiate that the classic openings are the best?

[Aqua Letifer]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

Are most people making money off of those online streaming chess games?

Obviously not. People generally don't play chess for money, unless they're Magnus Carlson - even he doesn't play for money - his wealth is just a fortunate by-product of his ability.

But some folk are. Hikaru Nakamura is undoubtedly making a lot more money from his streaming endeavours then he ever did as a top Grandmaster. And Danny Rensch wouldn't have made a red cent out of chess in the old days based on his playing strength, but is probably doing very nicely out of chess.com

Yeah, my point was only that "there's a lot of activity" and "more popular than ever before" are very different things from "earning enough money on which to live." (Although yes, I'm glad the interest has gone up. I blame Queen's Gambit.)

If we're smart, we could conceivably do something similar with the arts.

Some "new" stuff will definitely be made with AI. But the milestone stuff will be old-school ways of filling new gaps, like always.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Horace said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

Are most people making money off of those online streaming chess games?

Obviously not. People generally don't play chess for money, unless they're Magnus Carlson - even he doesn't play for money - his wealth is just a fortunate by-product of his ability.

But some folk are. Hikaru Nakamura is undoubtedly making a lot more money from his streaming endeavours then he ever did as a top Grandmaster. And Danny Rensch wouldn't have made a red cent out of chess in the old days based on his playing strength, but is probably doing very nicely out of chess.com

Yeah, my point was only that "there's a lot of activity" and "more popular than ever before" are very different things from "earning enough money on which to live." (Although yes, I'm glad the interest has gone up. I blame Queen's Gambit.)

It's also worth noting that the amount of innovation that has been introduced to the game is significant - there have been a lot of ideas and new ways of looking at the game introduced by Alphazero that have been adopted by human players.

Like new openings? Do the computers substantiate that the classic openings are the best?

Not so much new openings, but new strategies - the engines really love pushing wing pawns on the king-side, which in the old days was considered too weakening, and a lot of grandmasters do this now as a matter of routine. I know it doesn't sound like much, but you see this a lot now. Twenty years ago this wouldn't really be seen. I'm not a good enough player to understand the details, but based on what I've seen the nature of play at the top has changed.

In some ways, the impact of the computer is different - it has led to a lot more rapid and speed chess being played (5 minute games, 30 games etc.), since this often avoids the huge amount of opening preparation that a computer allows in the classical slow game.

What has really, really changed is the number of armchair experts. If you watch a game between two top players, there's always a bunch of people commenting on how weak Magnus is, based on the fact that their computer is telling them he missed a move.

[Doctor Phibes]

Speaking of popularity...

[Horace]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Horace said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

Are most people making money off of those online streaming chess games?

Obviously not. People generally don't play chess for money, unless they're Magnus Carlson - even he doesn't play for money - his wealth is just a fortunate by-product of his ability.

But some folk are. Hikaru Nakamura is undoubtedly making a lot more money from his streaming endeavours then he ever did as a top Grandmaster. And Danny Rensch wouldn't have made a red cent out of chess in the old days based on his playing strength, but is probably doing very nicely out of chess.com

Yeah, my point was only that "there's a lot of activity" and "more popular than ever before" are very different things from "earning enough money on which to live." (Although yes, I'm glad the interest has gone up. I blame Queen's Gambit.)

It's also worth noting that the amount of innovation that has been introduced to the game is significant - there have been a lot of ideas and new ways of looking at the game introduced by Alphazero that have been adopted by human players.

Like new openings? Do the computers substantiate that the classic openings are the best?

Not so much new openings, but new strategies - the engines really love pushing wing pawns on the king-side, which in the old days was considered too weakening, and a lot of grandmasters do this now as a matter of routine. I know it doesn't sound like much, but you see this a lot now. Twenty years ago this wouldn't really be seen. I'm not a good enough player to understand the details, but based on what I've seen the nature of play at the top has changed.

That's interesting. I'm curious which opening is objectively the most advantageous? I assume white always wins if a perfect player is matched against a perfect player. or maybe it's always a stalemate. I mean there must be the theoretically perfect game out there, if computers have solved chess.

[Horace]

@Horace said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Horace said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

Are most people making money off of those online streaming chess games?

Obviously not. People generally don't play chess for money, unless they're Magnus Carlson - even he doesn't play for money - his wealth is just a fortunate by-product of his ability.

But some folk are. Hikaru Nakamura is undoubtedly making a lot more money from his streaming endeavours then he ever did as a top Grandmaster. And Danny Rensch wouldn't have made a red cent out of chess in the old days based on his playing strength, but is probably doing very nicely out of chess.com

Yeah, my point was only that "there's a lot of activity" and "more popular than ever before" are very different things from "earning enough money on which to live." (Although yes, I'm glad the interest has gone up. I blame Queen's Gambit.)

It's also worth noting that the amount of innovation that has been introduced to the game is significant - there have been a lot of ideas and new ways of looking at the game introduced by Alphazero that have been adopted by human players.

Like new openings? Do the computers substantiate that the classic openings are the best?

Not so much new openings, but new strategies - the engines really love pushing wing pawns on the king-side, which in the old days was considered too weakening, and a lot of grandmasters do this now as a matter of routine. I know it doesn't sound like much, but you see this a lot now. Twenty years ago this wouldn't really be seen. I'm not a good enough player to understand the details, but based on what I've seen the nature of play at the top has changed.

That's interesting. I'm curious which opening is objectively the most advantageous? I assume white always wins if a perfect player is matched against a perfect player. or maybe it's always a stalemate. I mean there must be the theoretically perfect game out there, if computers have solved chess.

I googled. I guess chess isn't actually solved to that extent and it's still unknown what perfect play on both sides would yield. That also means that the standard openings can't be evaluated completely.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Horace said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Horace said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Horace said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:

Are most people making money off of those online streaming chess games?

Obviously not. People generally don't play chess for money, unless they're Magnus Carlson - even he doesn't play for money - his wealth is just a fortunate by-product of his ability.

But some folk are. Hikaru Nakamura is undoubtedly making a lot more money from his streaming endeavours then he ever did as a top Grandmaster. And Danny Rensch wouldn't have made a red cent out of chess in the old days based on his playing strength, but is probably doing very nicely out of chess.com

Yeah, my point was only that "there's a lot of activity" and "more popular than ever before" are very different things from "earning enough money on which to live." (Although yes, I'm glad the interest has gone up. I blame Queen's Gambit.)

It's also worth noting that the amount of innovation that has been introduced to the game is significant - there have been a lot of ideas and new ways of looking at the game introduced by Alphazero that have been adopted by human players.

Like new openings? Do the computers substantiate that the classic openings are the best?

Not so much new openings, but new strategies - the engines really love pushing wing pawns on the king-side, which in the old days was considered too weakening, and a lot of grandmasters do this now as a matter of routine. I know it doesn't sound like much, but you see this a lot now. Twenty years ago this wouldn't really be seen. I'm not a good enough player to understand the details, but based on what I've seen the nature of play at the top has changed.

That's interesting. I'm curious which opening is objectively the most advantageous? I assume white always wins if a perfect player is matched against a perfect player. or maybe it's always a stalemate. I mean there must be the theoretically perfect game out there, if computers have solved chess.

I googled. I guess chess isn't actually solved to that extent and it's still unknown what perfect play on both sides would yield. That also means that the standard openings can't be evaluated completely.

No, it's not solved. Computers don't play perfectly, and probably never will, they just play a lot better than people do. And actually, in some cases they still get it wrong, at least from a strategic perspective. Different engines will also find different moves, and have different positional assessments.