source

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

  • artifex@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • BurgerBaron@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • testfactor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

      • CubitOom@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

    • blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

  • Flagstaff@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Your caption is wrong: “text me,” not “text be.”

    Additionally, it’s not an unknown emoji; 😮‍💨 is a sighing emoji.

    • bedwyr@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

  • Smeagol666@crazypeople.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    L’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.

    • pachrist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • ∃∀λ@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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?”

    • GalacticGrapefruit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

  • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

        • bedwyr@piefed.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

        • SlurpingPus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • jtrek@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

            • jtrek@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              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.

        • saimen@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

    • DandomRude@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’m pretty sure it’s because he can’t stand losing. The man clearly suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder.

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        If you read “careless people” you see that Zuckerberg is the same. His minions purposefully lose at Catan with him to make him happy.

      • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

            • DandomRude@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              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.

                • village604@adultswim.fan
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  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.

              • village604@adultswim.fan
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  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.

            • huppakee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              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.

    • tired_n_bored@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Modern chess players are much stronger than last century precisely because they train against stockfish and use it to analyse the optimal move.

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      They also tended to explode in their evil leir. Usually because of a contraption they set up.

    • reka@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      “You expect me to talk?”

      “No, Mr Bond - I expect you to shid and cum”