Transcript:
Elon: The actual number of moves that are not utterly stupid in chess is tiny and chess will be fully solved one day
Chess.com: Skill issue
Elon: Chess is hard for humans, but not for computers. One day, it will be fully solved like checkers. Between now and then, or even after, have fun. People enjoy may games/sports where machines are vastly better.
Chess.com: There are more possible chess games, by about 40 order of magnitude, than atoms in the observable universe. To solve chess, you'd have to map them all. Good luck.
Elon: Wrong, all legal chess positions are ~40 ooms less than the estimated atoms in the Universe. And ASI will figure out ways to solve and compress that are far beyond what we could possibly comprehend. (Here I am arguing with some random intern at a chess website)
Chess.com: I'm a full-time employee
Elon: (something-emoji)
Chess.com: Even my friends don't text me back that fast
207 Comments
LordPassionFruit@lemmy.ca · 349 pts · 1d
"Even my friends don't text me back that fast" is a wonderful insult.
disorderly@lemmy.world · 136 pts · 1d
Our lad just starched the richest man in the world in his own office.
fleem@piefed.zeromedia.vip · 35 pts · 1d
straight up baking soda'd his ass
topherclay@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1d
Laid down the diatomaceous earth around the perimeter.
lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 1d
When I read that line I audibly whispered
”god damn dude”
SourDragon@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
I verbally oofed
Godort@lemmy.ca · 314 pts · 1d
So I guess Elon tried to get into chess because it's a smart people hobby, got demolished, and now is having a sour grapes moment.
bedwyr@piefed.ca · 92 pts · 1d
Probably also paid others to play for him like with his stupid video games, he's fucking pathetic.
I would be curious what his highest chess.com raing is. I got to 1650 once, a middling score, more often in the 1500s but don't play much now.
cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 1d
1650 a middling score?
cries in 800 elo
bedwyr@piefed.ca · 6 pts · 1d
Are you on chess.com though or the other one, they have a different lower rating system I think, lichess.com I think the latter might even be non profit but I still used chess.com because I was already there when I learned that.
tatterdemalion@programming.dev · 5 pts · 21h
It's not middling, it's an early-advanced rating. For perspective, an Elo differential of 400 implies 10:1 win:loss odds.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 16h
1650+ is about the top 40% of chess.com players (say 5%, not all humans).
Pluck a random off the street and your 800 will beat 19 out of 20.
Furbag@pawb.social · 2 pts · 10h
It's okay bro, I've been practicing getting better at chess for like 10 years now and I'm still 1100. Chess is fucking hard.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 1d
Very much a tommy talerico mentality but somehow musky got the luck
The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world · 152 pts · 1d
I don't know what he has against chess, but this is like the 3rd time I've seen him try to convince everyone that it's pointless because of computers.
negativenull@piefed.world · 178 pts · 1d
Another classic example that proves this:
lonefighter@sh.itjust.works · 178 pts · 1d
What I take from this is "I can't cheat, so I won't play"
nymnympseudonym@piefed.social · 119 pts · 1d
"I keep losing because this game is TOO SPUPID"
bedwyr@piefed.ca · 30 pts · 1d
Oh you can cheat at chess.com. People use engines to suss out the best moves and plug them into their games. Chess.com spots many, but not all of them, you will get notices after the fact that your rating has been changed upwards because they detected them cheating.
It's quite common.
huppakee@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
He is talking about when he was young though
StellarExtract@lemmy.zip · 61 pts · 1d
It's written like a deliberate parody of people like him, it's so ludicrous.
SlurpingPus@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
If it's real, it's the first tweet by him I've seen that's actually funny. Perfectly leans into the absurdity of that position.
The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world · 39 pts · 1d
My theory is that he's frustrated that he can't manage a team or pay someone to get better at it for him.
The humility it takes to be a beginner at something is uncomfortable when you have a huge ego.
Furbag@pawb.social · 3 pts · 9h
I mean, he could very easily do both of those things. Chess teams are a thing, and they need sponsors to be able to attend tournaments - I suppose that counts as "managing" a team. Chess coaches are also a thing, and even some of the worst novice players have seen massive improvement in their chess game after being paired up with famous chess streamers, but without him putting in the actual effort to absorb the information, he'll never get any better.
When all else fails, he could create an account and pay some broke ass GM to smurf for him. Nobody gets rich off of playing chess for a living, so him paying them to improve his elo and then him taking all the credit publicly would be par for the course and highly effective. Nobody is really going to call him out on that because he has a cult of personality surrounding him that built him up to be a genius. I mean, if you ask him to explain why he made a certain move in a high level game, the illusion would fall apart, but the media wouldn't dare hold his feet to the fire like that.
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 1d
Lol it means he has the same problem with it that I did: there's absolutely no random element to blame so when you lose you just fucking lose and that's all there is to it. The other person's brain just stepped on your brain and wiped it off on the curb.
saimen@feddit.org · 3 pts · 12h
Yeah I played a bit as a teenager and after getting demolished several times by old fucks 5 times my age I just couldn't take it anymore. Felt like there was nothing you could do to surprise them. Like running against a wall.
jtrek@startrek.website · 0 pts · 10h
Generally random factors allow players with less skill to win. I think about that with games a lot.
It's one of the (many) reasons I don't really like DND very much. Huge random factor. You can make excellent tactical decisions and lose. You can be an absolute baffoon and triumph.
Some randomness is okay but not like that.
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 10h
You must not like life lol.
jtrek@startrek.website · 0 pts · 9h
I wouldn't really characterize many things in life as the same kind of random. Throwing a dart at a dart board isn't a random action in the same way as rolling dice
Furthermore, dnd's randomization produces flat probability, which is often jarring.
socsa@piefed.social · 25 pts · 1d
Wow the most cringe comment possible. Amazing. He keeps doing it.
sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz · 17 pts · 1d
...Bro wants chess to be Age of Empires? wtf kind of response is this?
Amberskin@europe.pub · 4 pts · 17h
Sounds like Radovid in The Witcher 3. You know, the mad, genocidal king.
Peluri96@feddit.org · 2 pts · 18h
In truth hes just a huge fire emblem fan and goons to edelgard or something
DandomRude@lemmy.world · 73 pts · 1d
I'm pretty sure it's because he can't stand losing. The man clearly suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder.
The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 1d
Right? I'm sure he expected to immediately be a god at chess with no studying or practice, then got upset when that wasn't the case.
DandomRude@lemmy.world · 39 pts · 1d
Yes, because of his financial success, he considers himself a genius—which he very obviously never was. This is a common trait among billionaires. Many of them are psychopaths who have amassed their wealth through utter unscrupulousness, irresponsibility in the form of an absurd willingness to take risks, and sheer luck.
In the case of Musk, Thiel, and various others, that stroke of luck was PayPal. That company was so successful that it made all of its investors immeasurably rich—it was more a matter of chance that PayPal succeeded, and everything that followed really wasn’t all that difficult because that kind of money cannot lose anymore no matter how ridiculous stupid someone might be.
That’s precisely the problem: We only hear about the people who bet everything on one card and won—they’re portrayed as geniuses, which they never were. We never hear anything about all those who failed miserably—and that’s the vast majority.
Billionaires aren’t geniuses or even above-average in intelligence. Their financial success has, in the rarest of cases, anything to do with intelligence.
village604@adultswim.fan · 6 pts · 1d
Some of them might be considered marketing geniuses, like Jobs was.
DandomRude@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 1d
I would rather consider Steve Wozniak than Steve Jobs. Jobs was undoubtedly excellent at selling products, and he was certainly a smart (and also ruthless) businessman, but the pioneer—and the one who actually "did the thing"—was Wozniak.
It’s true, of course, that Wozniak probably wouldn’t have been able to make his product a success on his own, but that’s precisely where the problem lies: Bill Gates is certainly no fool either, but DOS—the product that made Microsoft the billion-dollar-company that it is today—was developed by someone else, namely Gary Kildall. Gates’s achievement consisted mainly of making a lot of money from it. He did just that, and did it well, while Kildall was fobbed off with a ridiculously small sum relative to the product’s success, since he was in a weak position at the time.
Although Gates was far more technically adept than Jobs, his core qualities were essentially the same—a good sence for business and a utter lack of scruples: Kildall never received a bonus payment from Microsoft for his work that would have even remotely acknowledged his importance.
There are many people in the IT sector who are worthy of admiration, but almost none of those who truly deserve it are among those the industry or rather the public celebrates as pioneers or visionaries—these are almost exclusively businesspeople who played only a marginal role, if any, in the development of the products they market.
In my view, success stories like Apple or Microsoft are fundamentally no longer possible today, since visionary spirit, wisdom, and inventiveness have been permanently replaced by the inhuman logic of cutthroat capitalism, which the U.S., above all, embodies. Its heroes are always the wrong ones—not those who have advanced humanity through their achievements, but always those who have known how to exploit others particularly ruthlessly for their own ends. These people lead the Western world today, which is why it stands on the brink of total collapse, since these people know nothing but boundless greed.
They are utterly unfit to lead millions upon millions of people—yet that is precisely what they seek to do in their pathological hubris.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
The thing about The Woz is, he showers.
village604@adultswim.fan · 1 pts · 1d
I really think Jobs dying was the start of the tech industry enshittification.
While he was a massive cunt and didn't personally develop the products, he pushed his people to innovate, and the rest of the industry followed to try to keep up.
Once iPhones became yearly iterative bullshit, the industry followed.
But Moore's Law slowing down does come into play.
DandomRude@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
It may be that his death marked a turning point, in a sense: He had already been forced out of his role as CEO by business executives in 1985 and didn’t return until 1997, when the company was on the brink of collapse. He then truly turned the company around through innovation: first with the iPod, then with the iPhone—both products that changed the world. I don’t want to downplay this foresight at all, and I also think that Jobs was someone who cared about the cause—about products that are meaningful and useful.
Nevertheless, I don’t believe the start of enshittification can be pinned to the date of his death. Rather, he was one of those, who laid the groundwork for it—here’s an example: soon, Google will tighten the screws and design the Play Store along the closed model that Apple introduced back in the day.
In short: I think there are many other reasons. Jobs was an outstanding businessman, but he lived in a different world than the one we live in today.
Echinoderm@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 23h
My lay-person perspective is Jobs pioneered enshittification. The iPod was not an mp3 player, you had to use proprietary format music, which needed to be loaded with iTunes, a piece of proprietary software that acted almost like a virus once installed on your machine.
SlurpingPus@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 1d
Did you write that wall of text to say that Wozniak was the marketing genius instead of Jobs?
village604@adultswim.fan · 5 pts · 1d
I'm pretty sure they were saying that while Woz was the real genius that made the product, simply making a superior product isn't a guarantee it'll be successful.
In reality, you need both people.
huppakee@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
He understood the market and knew what products to put there, I'd say he is a genius at that - but imo a marketing genius would be someone who can sell anything no matter how shitty the product is, so i'd say that term would be better fitting for his competitors at Microsoft for example.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 16h
If you read "careless people" you see that Zuckerberg is the same. His minions purposefully lose at Catan with him to make him happy.
Rothe@piefed.social · 8 pts · 17h
We know what he has against chess, he sucks at it because he is a moron.
red_tomato@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
Can’t lose to chess if you refuse to play it
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 16h
Greetings Professor Falken
tired_n_bored@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
I enjoy see sport competitions because I like to see what humans are capable of. I don't need a so-called genius to prove that we can create robots running faster than humans. Likewise I don't need to be told that Stockfish is stronger than Carlsen because then what? We should stop playing because a machine is better?
Also, what does "solving chess mean"? We already have algorithms trying every possible move
AmyAye@nord.pub · 3 pts · 1d
No no see, we can "solve chess" and find the one path that will always win no matter what.
Then we can stop plahing, duh.
/s
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 16h
Modern chess players are much stronger than last century precisely because they train against stockfish and use it to analyse the optimal move.
socsa@piefed.social · 141 pts · 1d
I have been a full ass adult the entire time twitter has existed and I still don't fucking understand how the thread structure works.
veni_vedi_veni@lemmy.world · 56 pts · 1d
Oh good I thought I was the only one having an aneurysm reading from top to bottom
rustydrd@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 1d
When you reply to a tweet, the reply is displayed underneath the tweet you're replying to, so the thread structure normally is from the top down like you would expect. Unfortunately, some people, like the one running the chess account, habitually use retweets/quote tweets instead of replies, which are displayed above the original tweet (with the original tweet indented to the right). This messes up the thread structure.
historicaldocuments@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1d
But for the people doing that it puts their comment first. If there was a better metaphor for shitting all over a commonly agreed upon standard that works well for everyone so you can be at the front then I can't really think of it.
jivandabeast@lemmy.browntown.dev · 3 pts · 1d
Its been nearly a decade since I've used twitter, but iirc you use a quote retweet so it shows for your followers. If you just reply, and they don't follow the OP, then it doesn't show in their feeds
Threeme2189@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 18h
I agree, and don't get me started on the clusterfuck that is Discord. How the fuck do you navigate that abomination of a GUI?
Want to add a friend? No fucking idea where the button is.
Want to call a friend? No fucking idea how.
And God forbid that you want go create a group call.
BurgerBaron@quokk.au · 93 pts · 1d
The guy who pays people to play video games for him so he can fail at pretending he played himself in a "Hello, fellow kids" moment is pretending to be smart again? Wild.
zitrone@europe.pub · 80 pts · 1d
wtf is the order one is supposed to read this in?
ZMoney@lemmy.world · 39 pts · 1d
Something I'll never understand about twitter. Maybe it was more readable before the nazi took it over?
ratel@mander.xyz · 39 pts · 1d
It was always that unintuitive.
socsa@piefed.social · 20 pts · 1d
Twitter threads have never made any fucking sense.
Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it · 31 pts · 1d
markz@suppo.fi · 46 pts · 1d
Month-day-year social media format
huppakee@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 1d
The person who put three screenshot together would have gained so much respect to me if they just took 5 extra seconds to paste it in reading order.
HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 1d
Twitter-brained people think being Twitter-brained is the default.
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 1d
2, 1, 3, 5, 4, 6, 8, 7, 9, 10, of course, silly! 😝
Hope this actually helps someone read it quicker though
diaphragmwp@discuss.tchncs.de · 10 pts · 1d
Middle (thing being rexeeted), top (rexeet caption), bottom (reply). Repeat for each screenshot.
cally@piefed.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 1d
uhh,,, parentheses first i guess
fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com · 5 pts · 1d
Fibonacci
raino@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 1d
*Fibonazi
Buage_@piefed.social · 62 pts · 1d
Lmaooooo love that reply 🤣
nonentity@sh.itjust.works · 61 pts · 1d
Elon Musk is the personification of a moron’s hallucination of a genius.
axx@slrpnk.net · 7 pts · 1d
He such and irredeemable dumbass.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 17h
thats the ketamine, cocaine and dom perrignon talking.
blackjam_alex@lemmy.world · 60 pts · 1d
He's so insecure about his own intelligence.
Imagine being the richest man alive and your whole existence is being envious of other people's abilities.
mofongo@discuss.tchncs.de · 7 pts · 15h
Entirely self inflicted. He's been wealthy all his life. He could have learned any skill or hobby.
PhoenixDog@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 11h
Or just shut the fuck up and not realized the reality of how stupid he really is.
naught101@lemmy.world · 53 pts · 1d
What is ASI? Adolescent Sexualised Imagery?
Bad_Engineering@fedia.io · 28 pts · 1d
Artificial Super Intelligence.
mrmaplebar@fedia.io · 9 pts · 1d
I'm a ssSUPER! Thanks for asssking!
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 6 pts · 1d
If it's made by Elon Musk's company then these are the same picture.
chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 21h
See, right now we have Not Artificial Super Intelligence. Or NASI.
unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de · 7 pts · 1d
Artificial sentient intelligence maybe
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 6 pts · 1d
I feel like the whole point of this stunt (even if it backfired on him) was to introduce ASI as the next goal for investors.
Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1d
Ass shit iguana
bedwyr@piefed.ca · 3 pts · 1d
Aging Smarmy Idiot, Elon is the model
Sabin10@lemmy.world · 47 pts · 1d
Elon Musk doesn't understand complex systems? Colour me I already knew that.
macaw_dean_settle@lemmy.world · -19 pts · 18h
*color, not col our.
Rbnsft@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 18h
Colour is british english. :)
timochka@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 18h
AKA "English".
"Color" is Simplified English.
kestrel7_7@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 9h
Ah, but since far more people speak “Simplified” English then it should become the new “Just” English 😂 British English can be “Complexified English.”
timochka@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 8h
You sure about that?
Clue: Yankees are FAR from a majority of English speakers.
2nd Clue: India, Pakistan, Nigeria...
balsoft@lemmy.ml · 41 pts · 12h
elon musk is literally https://xkcd.com/1112/
Jankatarch@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 11h
Goal is to NOT be checkmated, so you should always move your pieces towards your king.
BigDiction@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 11h
Found the fortress player.
Brennenstein@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 10h
That's way too accurate, lol.
jaemo@sh.itjust.works · 40 pts · 21h
Literal proof that the rich ARE MORONS.
Spaniard@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 16h
I don't think most rich people are like Elon Musk. He is one of the few that wastes his time trying to prove he doesn't have a small dick.
Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 16h
They're not all idiotic like Snusk, but the bar is so low it's in hell.
kent_eh@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 9h
No, some of them are like Donald Trump or Peter Theil.
starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 9h
Reminder he was such a loser he couldn't even get invited to epstein island
kestrel7_7@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 9h
I think the opposite. I think Musk is actually one of the smartest rich guys. Not that I think Musk is smart, but most of these fuckers seem even stupider.
Like Musk has actually moved tech forward… not because he has any particularly unique insights, just because all the other rich guys were scared of electric cars.
kodevade@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 19h
One of the reason's they are super rich is because they are morons
Test_Tickles@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 11h
I wonder how true that actually is? I generally subscribe to the theory that you have to do some horrible shit to a lot of people to hit 1billion. With that comes the automatic assumption that Billionaires are corrupt people. But I wonder how much of it is sheer stupidity blinding them to the damage that they reek on everyone else.
late_pessimistic@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 11h
I think reason why ultrarich can be called dumb is their lack of introspection.
They don't waste time thinking "How does this affect other people?" or "Why do I want to be rich?" or else they wouldn't have spent decades relentlessly grinding in a rat race.
You also have to be very delusional and take massive gambles to get rich. It worked out for Gates or Musk, yes, but its a survivorship bias. Lots of other psychotic people have lost all by chasing the next big thing like AI-powered startups or NFTs.
Although I would surely not claim all ultrarich people are dumb, because I haven't seen any, nor have research to back this up.
kent_eh@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 9h
It's impossible to become a billionaire without some severely sociopathic character flaws.
Seimhe@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 1d
The man with the Large Paedophilia Model can’t even solve himself.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 1d
Ok;
This is the observable universe.
Not the entire universe, which we have no idea how large it is.
So the observable universe has 10^80 atoms or so. The number of possible moves in all possible chess games is supposed to be around 10^120. That number is called the “Shannon Number.”
According to this site.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 13 pts · 21h
yeah but how many of those moves are not stupid as hell, like my moves
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 16h
Whether a move is stupid or not is Irrelevant.
You do need to remove the impossible positions, like pawns on rank 1
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 10h
Removing stupid moves eliminates a lot of unnecessary to compute gamestates no?
bequirtle@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 10h
No it doesn't, you still need to know how to counter a stupid move
tazeycrazy@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 9h
A mathematical model to solve chess would still need to recognise the move, calculate the advantage and disadvantage of the move and then discard. An algorithm would still need to do this for every move if it's to be a compleat model.
WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com · 2 pts · 8h
Wouldn't advantage and disadvantage just be a heuristic that's useful for feasibly making computers that can win games of chess against humans, but by usual definitions of solved games, I'm not sure it would be useful? You'd still need a decision tree for every possible move the opponent makes for any state of the board.
absentbird@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 9h
So the chess.com account was right: 120 - 80 = ~40 oom
kn0wmad1c@programming.dev · 32 pts · 1d
Elon wants to become a computer so badly, but not even he will put a neuralink chip in his head.
That speaks magnitudes about that tech tbh.
Pantrygheist@programming.dev · 4 pts · 1d
Just wishing that for once he became the though leader he thinks he is and pioneered the tech on himself instead of those poor monkeys.
wrinkle2409@lemmy.cafe · 30 pts · 1d
Being able to solve checkers doesn't mean people will stop enjoying playing checkers. It is true that chess could be solved, although you don't really need to brute force every single possibility 'by hand' as that guy implied, but it won't mean people will stop playing it
MrVilliam@sh.itjust.works · 33 pts · 1d
Man with no friends doesn't understand the point of playing a game beyond "solving" and "winning" the game. I wonder why he has no friends.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 1d
Psychopath mentality.
vrek@programming.dev · 16 pts · 1d
I don't understand why people play tennis, I can solve tennis without any Ai. All you need is a wall.
I don't understand why people compete in swimming. A motorized raft could cross that pool so much faster.
I don't understand why people read anymore. Text to speech has been around for decades.
I don't understand why people look at sunsets. Realistic photographs have been around for dozens of years.
What do you mean I have multiple psychological disorders? I have a lot of money so I must be perfect.
/s this is all a joke, I understand the concept of having fun and playing
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 2 pts · 1d
Walls, rafts, and even text to speech are all things that have helped humanity. "Solving chess" will not benefit us at all, it will just be a benchmark to sell to investors.
vrek@programming.dev · 5 pts · 1d
Well yeah true but not the point. People play chess because they enjoy playing chess. People play tennis, swimming and reading because they enjoy those activities. They don't need to be "solved" because it's the act of doing which is the benefit.
In contrast not many people "enjoy" say doing laundry. They enjoy having clean clothes. The end goal is the benefit. People don't enjoy calculating the standard deviation of 1500 data points. No one is excited on Friday because that weekend they will get to do that. It might be useful for something, may lead to other discoveries, or help them with completing some other task but the result is the goal not the act.
People may be excited because they are going on a hike that weekend. The act of hiking is the goal. People enjoy bike riding. Yeah it's "solved" since you can just have a car/motorcycle take you anywhere much faster with less effort but people enjoy the act of riding a bike.
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 0 pts · 1d
I think we are actually saying the same thing
vrek@programming.dev · 4 pts · 1d
Atleast we both agree that solving chess is stupid goal and should not be done.
nymnympseudonym@piefed.social · 3 pts · 1d
And Elon is reading the correct CS/math blogs by pointing out that only legal moves need to be considered.
If he was a little more on his toes, he might point out that Go has a vastly larger state-space than chess, yet it was one of the first problems that fell to GenAI, which is able to find crazy-complex high-dimensional heuristics/"intuition" navigating such spaces.
eestileib@sh.itjust.works · 22 pts · 1d
Naw it wasn't genAI, it was the deep learning stuff that came before, when ML was still cool.
JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca · 14 pts · 1d
God damn I feel that in my bones.
nymnympseudonym@piefed.social · -2 pts · 1d
It was one of the first instances of genAI. The team at Google figured out that you take a classifier, flip it round to make a generator, then set it against the classifier to train itself
Miaou@jlai.lu · 2 pts · 15h
GAN have been around way before...
pulsewidth@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 1d
Except, Go isn't a solved game. Which is what we're taking about here.
Elon doesn't read anything except social media posts.
nymnympseudonym@piefed.social · -3 pts · 1d
Depends what you mean by "solved"
Mapped the entire state space so next move is just a lookup in a huge table? No, Universe not big enough.
Game is no longer generally winnable by humans no matter their level of skill? Yes, that happened.
pulsewidth@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 18h
Moving the goalposts.
What I mean is simply the definition of a solved game. From any position, the outcome of the game can be correctly predicted assuming both players play perfect moves from then on.
You'll note that Go is not on the list, but is down under 'partially solved' as it has weak solves (solved under limited conditions) only at a 5x5 and 7x7 board in 2015.
Humans play on a 19x19 board, which is 145 orders of magnitude above 7x7. It'll not likely be solved by an LLM until it has storage space, RAM, and processing speed several-dozen orders of magnitude larger than all that which currently exists on Earth.
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 7 pts · 1d
I wouldn't say Go "fell to GenAI"
Go grandmaster Shin defeats AI KataGo in historic human victory
As the article shows, the Pros don't treat AI the same as a human player and often don't attack its weaknesses and instead try to find more interesting ways to defeat it and learn more about the game.
Although it should be noted that Shin Jin-seo did start with a 2 stone handicap. But this also alters the AI to play more risky moves it wouldn't normally.
One thing that is super cool about Go is the ability to add a handicap.
nymnympseudonym@piefed.social · -3 pts · 1d
A handful of prodigies are still able to sometimes beat the AI.
I count that as solved, the same way a few crumbs on my plate means I have "finished" my meal
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 29 pts · 11h
So he just saw "40 orders of magnitude" and decided that just happened to be the same number he needed to make his point (just going the other way).
Lol ok.
Legitimate question; does he know what an order of magnitude is?
cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 11h
No, he clearly does not.
Tetragrade@leminal.space · 2 pts · 47m
Chess will never be solved because there's like a gajillion billion moves, probbaly more moves in a chess game than goku has power points when he goes like super duper saiyan
Smeagol666@crazypeople.online · 27 pts · 16h
I knew Melon Husk was a moron years ago. Just before the release of the Cyberdumpster, he had made an off-the-cuff statement about the quality of said vehicle as "having a tolerance of plus or minus five microns". At the time I worked for a company that made power train parts for all kinds of different makes and models of cars. specifically, I made what's known as a "spider", a type of gear that allows for flexibility at the joint: the part under the protective "boot" if you've ever glanced under a car. My job was running the machine that cuts the splines on the spider that makes it fit on the shaft. Even the smallest of spiders have an I.D. (inner diameter) tolerance of plus or minus fifteen microns.
I knew by Melon Head's comment that he either didn't know what the fuck a micron was, or just thought it would make him sound smart because nobody else did. This was back when he was at the height of his popularity, before he got involved with the orange Pedo-in-Chief and started throwing Nazi gang signs.
I'm glad that the Cyberdumpster was/is such a failure; those things are ugly as fuck. On the other hand, I hate that the rest of us will have to foot the bill for his fuck-ups.
GalacticGrapefruit@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 11h
I'm a bicycle mechanic, not a combustion engine mechanic. But given that fact, I am INTIMATELY familiar with just how suddenly and catastrophically aluminum can fail at even relatively low-speed collisions, and how poorly it tolerates torsion and vibration.
As soon as this pimple-brained wannabe engineer said that the cyberdumpster would have an aluminum frame and a stainless steel body, I backpedaled so fast. I can't think of a dumber combination of parts for a machine that's supposed to carry human beings.
pachrist@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 12h
I think this is a lot of people's experience with Elon, and least until be went full crazy. If you didn't know anything about the subject he was talking about, he sounded smart. If you did know something about it, you figured out how dumb he was really fast.
eah@programming.dev · 9 pts · 10h
He talked about electric cars. I don't know anything about cars, so when people said he was a genius I figured he must be a genius.
Then he talked about rockets. I don't know anything about rockets, so when people said he was a genius I figured he must be a genius.
Now he talks about software. I happen to know a lot about software & Elon Musk is saying the stupidest shit I've ever heard anyone say, so when people say he's a genius I figure I should stay the hell away from his cars and rockets.
https://mastodon.social/@rodhilton/109572674700288958
kestrel7_7@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 9h
The first time I ever heard of Musk was in 2007 when he was boosting the hyperloop. I don’t know anything about hyperloops, but I know a lot about trains. Musk was arguing that trains were outdated and the hyperloop was better and cheaper because it was new. I just remember thinking, “how is experimental, untested tech going to be cheaper than off-the-shelf railroad tech? And this guy is supposed to be smart?”
blitzen@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 9h
I don't know if you meant it this way, but that is hilariously similar to the "First They Came" poem.
Prox@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 1d
This guy is such a loser.
MasutaHarada@thelemmy.club · 24 pts · 23h
I don't know much about chess and how it works in professional stage, but even i know whatever that musk spout from his mouth are complete arrogance and bs
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 17h
he think hes smart if he plays chess.
DakRalter@thelemmy.club · 8 pts · 15h
Does he play though, or does he hire someone to play for him?
artifex@piefed.zip · 23 pts · 1d
I think some people don’t understand what a pastime is. I don’t care if someone solves chess just like I don’t care if someone uses AI to generate an image. I play chess to play it. I make art to make it. The doing is the point of it.
Flagstaff@programming.dev · 0 pts · 16h
Shouldn't that make you actively anti-AI-gen images, though, not just neutral about them?
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 22 pts · 1d
Elon Musk is a literal crackhead, on drugs for real, but I will admit that he isn't technically wrong that the pool of valid moves is more limited than total possible theoretical states. What he fails to realize is that counter-plays exist so there will always be a high level of strategy involved.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 19 pts · 12h
Even though elon is like a bad James Bond villain he is nothing like the Bond villains from the movies. The movie Bond villains had sophistication and class.
kestrel7_7@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 9h
Tbh I hope the next Bond movie has a villain inspired by Musk.
“Most epic, is it not, Mr. Bond?” He says, gesturing to his pleasure palace of screens with anime waifus on them.
tazeycrazy@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 9h
They also tended to explode in their evil leir. Usually because of a contraption they set up.
mushroommunk@lemmy.today · 16 pts · 1d
Flipping the entire table after crapping on an the pieces is Elon's idea of a solved game
testfactor@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1d
Solved or not, computers already smoke even the best chess players in the world. It feels like both of them think people can still compete with computers at chess? What a weird argument.
terranoid@lemmy.cafe · 24 pts · 1d
It's more that Elon Musk is arguing that "chess is too stupid for me and it will eventually be fully solved" and the other dude is arguing that it's basically unsolvable given its complexity, and it's not as simple as he claims.
The history on this is that Elon Musk thinks he's a super genius and needs to maintain that narcissistic mindset and one really dumb fucking thing that's come out of that was he claimed he's above chess because it's too "simple" and prefers real genius strategy games like RTS.
Now I love RTS but he's just a narcisstic prick trying to feed his ego and his argument doesn't go beyond that. He's not good at chess, probably has a shit ELO, so to convince the world he's still a super genius he has to provide a good reason why he's not also a chess grandmaster.
Saying it's too "simple" and that RTS is more of a showcase kinda solves that conundrum. It allows him to bake in this illusion of being a genius that's too good for chess, but also probably not great at RTS but in my experience they're mostly training.
This is narcissist behavior. They fucking love looking like geniuses, especially him. He wants to be seen as this generation's Tesla, a little boy genius who just opened a rocket science book one day and made the next gen rocket.
Narcissists need to pump up that illusion and anything that proves it might be wrong is sort of emotionally dangerous. In his worldview, geniuses are good at chess, so why isn't he a natural at it? Well, it's below him, and it will be fully solved by the AI that the boy genius creates. As dumb as that fucking argument is, it's all about his ego and maintaining the illusion.
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 6 pts · 1d
Not even normal RTS, but like a casual mobile RTS. I played polytopia back in the day, it was fun. But I wouldn't compare it to chess, or even a desktop RTS game.
terranoid@lemmy.cafe · 6 pts · 1d
LMAO "no fog of war, no random maps"
What a fucking petulant child
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 1d
He's arguing like a teen.
Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 1d
Some irony here is that a not uncommon way to develop an rts or board game is to start with chess and mutate it into something new.
blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 1d
No, the employee was simply saying the game will not be "solved." That's very different from what you said.
Computers can look at a current board state and assess the pros and cons of all available moves considering the next x number of turns, where x is a number much lower than the possible number of turns in a game.
For chess to be solved a computer would need to be able to see the outcome of each move for as many turns as are possible in a game.
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1d
Considering how simple 'Connect 4' is, chess looks downright impossible by infinite
https://youtu.be/KaljD3Q3ct0
(Great video about solving connect 4 by 2swap)
cylinder0093@fedinsfw.app · 3 pts · 1d
Chess.com (bad btw) knows that humans can't compete with computers at chess lmao. That's not the conversation that's happening
ashenone@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 1d
He's got a text file on his computer called Elon's Chess Moves
Flagstaff@programming.dev · 10 pts · 16h
Your caption is wrong: "text me," not "text be."
Additionally, it's not an unknown emoji; 😮💨 is a sighing emoji.
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1d
To fully solve chess you wouldn't necessarily have to model every possible game situation; it might also be possible to discover an algorithm that provably can achieve at least a draw no matter what.
SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 15h
But fully solved in the computer science sense does mean calculating every scenario. The program needs to be able to calculate every possible end game based on the starting position on the board to know the perfect move set, that’s fully solved chess. Anything less than that is not mathematically solved in computer science.
Doomsider@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 1d
They already have algorithms to do this.
whatstatersprecious@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 23h
No there is no algorithm that can guarantee a draw.
Doomsider@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 23h
You are probably technically right about the qualification of guarantee.
On the other hand, the current best algorithm can definitely beat the best human players.
whatstatersprecious@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 20h
It’s not a technicality. We’re discussing whether chess is a “solved game” or not.
That’s a much different standard than whether Stockfish can reliably beat Magnus Carlsen. Of course the engines are better than humans. They have been for a long time at this point.
Chess is not a solved game. If there was a bot that could provably always draw, that would mean it’s solved (as a draw). To be clear, I’m not saying that the bot would just have a perfect drawing record - I’m saying that it literally could never lose, even when playing against the absolute best possible moves.
Doomsider@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 18h
"To fully solve chess you wouldn't necessarily have to model every possible game situation; it might also be possible to discover an algorithm that provably can achieve at least a draw no matter what. "
To which I replied we already have an algorithm that can do that. Current algorithms can already beat all players.
So no, we were not discussing that.
Speaking of a draw, (I know, not what he or you were actually saying) apparently you can set the "contempt factor" on advanced engines like stockfish to get the program to be more likely to accept draws.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 16h
What we are really discussing is if Elon is spewing bullshit. He is.
Doomsider@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 15h
Elon is so full of shit it isn't funny. CEO to three different companies at once my ass.
pirc_lover@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 16h
This is the definition they are discussing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game
Chess is not, by this definition, a solved game.
Doomsider@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 15h
I was aware.
Which had nothing to do with what I was saying.
freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 1d
Did you come up with this comment in between delivering door dash orders?
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1d
Why does he have no problem just denying the Chess.com interns premise, when it is correct and he can google it??? Why did Mr Musk not google before blatantly lying??
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 15 pts · 1d
Because questioning your ideas is a learned behavior.
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
Thought he would've learned some skills on not saying embarrassing things online by now, however.
Also - some critical thinking skills from school and university? No?
I'm just disappointed
pulsey@feddit.org · 1 pts · 15h
He probably asked Grok.
Avicenna@programming.dev · 9 pts · 11h
Makes me remember the news a decade ago that went like "Elon Musk the genius billionaire who reads rocket science books to take us all to Mars". Yeah he probably did read them, without really understanding details, so that he could throw around technical words to impress people. It worked for a short while but he wasn't clever enough to keep his stupid ideas to him so he exposed himself basically.
TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1d
I'd love to see his attempt to 'solve' Go like this
racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 9h
I love how everyone here is like "hur hur, Elon is a moron" (and of course he is).
But in the end they're just talking around each other. And are both right it seems.
The number of atoms in the universe is about 10^80. The number of possible games (which the chess.com guy was talking about) was once estimated to be about 10^120 (so 40 magnitudes larger). The number of possible positions is currently estimated at about 10^40 positions (so about 40 magnitudes smaller).
In the end i'd say positions is more important in solve a game than ways to get to those positions. For each position you need to know the perfect next move.
But Elon not noticing he's talking about something different than the Chess.com guy is... intriguing XD.
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 10h
NO! THERE AREN'T MORE CHESS POSITIONS THAN ATOMS IN THE UNIVERSE, ITS ACTUALLY MORE LIKE THE SAME AMOUNT OF CHESS POSITIONS AS THERE ARE CELLS THAT EVER LIVED!
ok genius map that then.
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
It's so stupid that I wouod make myself stupid by treating it as a serious discussion
bedwyr@piefed.ca · 6 pts · 1d
If you live in the US, too late on that one. The quality of public discussions has been precipitously declining, and it wasn't very intelligent before.
derpgon@programming.dev · 5 pts · 1d
So nobody is gonna call out how fucking hard is this to read.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
That's like 2/3 of the comments from instances I'm federated with lol
13igTyme@piefed.social · 4 pts · 1d
Elon used the old "reword your insult to use back at you."
Magnum@infosec.pub · 4 pts · 1d
What? Checkers is "solved" ?
red_tomato@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1d
Like tic-tac-toe, there’s a way to play checkers so that it always forces a win or a draw for you. That’s not possible yet in chess.
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 1d
Yeah, every possible combination of checkers moves has been simulated and analyzed. We know everything there is to know about playing checkers, there's no new strategies to discover. We can write an algorithm that will ALWAYS choose the best possible move.
You may have independently done that with Tic Tac Toe.
It's not possible to do with chess. The number of possible combinations of moves is astronomical; if we used up every atom in the observable universe we couldn't write them all down, so there might be revolutionary new strategies that remain undiscovered, and that will never not be the case.
historicaldocuments@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
https://seirdy.one/posts/2021/01/12/password-strength/
Even if that angry guy talking about compression algorithms for chess (I see he didn't propose one) is right, there's still Go.
Souvenir@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1d
Fun fact: a tarot deck has 72 different cards. That means there's 72! combinations, which is a number that is roughly 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 larger than the amount of atoms in the observable universe.
RumorsOfLove@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 22h
ahem permutations
Souvenir@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 20h
No thank you, I just ate.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
But not screenshot resolution.
Olmai@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
The transcript is so much more readable than the image
Lumidaub@feddit.org · 2 pts · 1h
What does it mean to "solve" chess? And what does he mean checkers is "solved"? Shirley, he can't still be mad that he's bad at chess, no? (Yes, yes he can)
Tetragrade@leminal.space · 1 pts · 49m
Solved means that the best move is known for all positions. "Best move" meaning the move that leads to the highest chance of victory vs an opponent that also always plays the best move.
Nickelalloy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
Do we have any comunity that is active and post shit Musk rants/argue about?
MurrayL@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d