For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
Richest man in the world keep trying and failing to get people to like him by being terminally online
A smart person: "I know that one day, the machines we have that cannot solve certain problems, which has been proven mathematically, will magically learn how to solve these problems anyway and thus make everything that is impossible, possible."
Imagine buying the platform and still getting grilled
Musk should go back to paying someone else to play Path Of Exile for him
thinks he’s Matt Damon’s character from Good Will Hunting
Any feminists with fun hair colors who want to volunteer to tell him that he needs to stop doing drugs because it's not woke?
Or don't actually. Kind of counting on him finishing this bedridden vegetable speedrun since America seems incapable of producing more that one or two Luigi's
My work homie and I have a long running bit where we both pretend we're good at chess and can play in our head so we'll just say random chess pieces bames and random letter and number combos and say stuff like 'oh yes, the Varny-Salzberg flank. Very clever' I genuinely dont even know specifically which pieces move what way. We're just both the kind of people that others assume are good at it cause we're nerds
top tier bit
Dunning-Krueger Attack
solve chess? it's a fuckin game, that you play against people, but everyone hates him so he plays online.
Broke: solving chess.
Woke: solving billionaires.
I remember him complaining about chess years ago and one of his complaints was that chess has no fog of war!
and he map hacks.
I'm a chess fan and melons arrogance over the game pisses me off to no end. It's so deeply incurious about the beauty and creativity. It's just the epitome of tech bro capitalism, why would I waste my time learning and growing at a thing a computer can do?
He's made wild claims about how good he could be if he just tried and I'd love to see him try to back that up.
I'm just so angry at him dismissing the beautiful games of like Fischer or Tal or Kasparov. These are like legitimate pieces of art. And I hate him for it.
Coming from the dude who thought polytopia was the end all be all of strategy. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun game. But a grand strategy it is not.
If Elon's so smart he should think of ways to make people not fucking despise him
solved
What a wretched perspective to be cursed with. Sure, and maybe one day human life itself will be fully solved and everyone will just be born directly into The Infant Smelter
Elon is a goon but that’s just the term that is used when every possible game state is mapped out. Tic-tac-toe is an example that is pretty trivially solved to the point where you can always win or tie.
Expanding on this, "solved" specifically refers to a game where the optimal strategy always results in winning or a draw, regardless of what the opponent does, becoming deterministic. It comes from mathematics, where problems are solved, and game theory (the branch of mathematics concerning solutions/proofs dependent on user choices).
Checkers, tic-tac-toe, Mancala, Connect Four, Rubik's cubes, and Othello have all been solved. Go, chess, and Klondike solitaire remain unsolved, despite deterministic board states. It is likely go will never be solved. Solving chess runs into problems with processing and memory, since there's so many possible games. We literally can't mark all of them down if the entire universe inscribed a different game on every atom in existence. With solitaire, we don't even know the probability of winning any given game (much to the frustration of mathematicians).
The question if and how chess can practically be solved is in itself pretty interesting. But just the claim that it's boring because it's going to be solved is so intellectually incurious.
That's also a large part of why I'm so annoyed with vibe coding. It takes all the intellectual curiosity out of the field. Only the solutions matter. And it doesn't even whether they are correct but that nobody finds something wrong about them within whatever time/effort humans are willing to spend to try to validate the solutions.
If you told Kafka about Elon's terminally online life of paying to be constantly owned over and over, he would kill himself on the spot.
PS: One morning, as Gregor Samsa was waking up from anxious dreams, he discovered that in bed he had been changed into a corncob.
i want him to die a painful and embarrassing death
is there a way he could die over and over again
We may have to ask Respected Comrade Kim if he can teach us the art of Juche necromancy.
Stop his heart, let him sit for a minute, resuscitate him, then repeat until his heart explodes
I can safely say for just about everyone, elons heart simply stopping is no where enough suffering. Even if it's a series of stops and starts
Hey Grok, how do you give locked in syndrome to a whiny South African man in his 50's, with the goal of letting him live to be 110?
Lathe suggestion: Dick torn apart by a sex doll
Well allegedly his dick is already bodged
Inflate his genitals until they burst.
Honestly, it's hard to beat the classics
Drowning in human waste after falling into the cesspit.
If that isn't the great allegory of our times
I think Elon is actually correct about his initial point which is that the domain of sensible moves in chess is narrow enough that the game will be effectively solved (in the sense that a strategy will be discovered that is never defeated even if it's not mathematically proven to be perfect) probably within our lifetimes.
Leave it to Elon's fragile ego to take an easily defensible position and find a way to get owned anyway.
It is solved in a sense, though, it's technically a draw with perfect play. And many opening lines can be a forced draw.
What solves chess is never going to be a strategy. The only way is to know the perfect move in every board state, which has very different implications.
Maybe, but I think the greater point is that if somebody came out and said "we've solved chess here's the math equation that proves it" chess players probably wouldn't care. Computers have been better than humans at that game for a while now and it literally doesn't matter.
Plus, the domain of "which moves are sensible" changes in response to how players are playing the game. So I can easily imagine a world where the hypothetical "perfect" game is mapped out, but then top level players distinguish themselves by coming up with imperfect continuations that their opponent hasn't studied, and it just becomes a pole that players orient themselves around rather than resulting in the game becoming "like checkers".
top level players distinguish themselves by coming up with imperfect continuations their opponent hasn't studied
This is exactly what Magnus Carlson does. He lures opponents into known boardstates, then does something that throws every known solution out the window, where he can then improvise a win through intuition.
The Bong Cloud is a total meme, but it's an easy to understand example of Carlson's mindset.
chess players probably wouldn't care. Computers have been better than humans at that game for a while now and it literally doesn't mat
The twitter format is annoying to parse but if you reread the op and you will see that you have just paraphrased the very first thing that Musk said.
Plus, the domain of "which moves are sensible" changes in response to how players are playing the game.
I'm not taking about moves that are simply considered optimal within a metagame but moves that are not strictly bad.
If a game is solved then following the optimal strategy will always win, so making "distinguishing moves" will always result in losing the game. If the players are deliberately avoiding studying or using the known optimal strategy then the game has indeed become like checkers.
Personally I feel that once computers have surpassed humans at a game there is a je ne sais quoi that is lost and can never be regained. There will never be the same awe seeing inspired plays and innovative strategies developed once I know in the back of my head that there is a known objectively better strategy out there. Not everyone will feel that way obviously, some can ignore the elephant and some cannot.
If a game is solved then following the optimal strategy will always win, so making "distinguishing moves" will always result in losing the game. If the players are deliberately avoiding studying or using the known optimal strategy then the game has indeed become like checkers.
I think that this paragraph assumes a capacity for memorization that humans just don't have. My contention is that, even if chess is "solved", the variations that branch off of the "perfect game" will still be so complex that whether or not a player knows how to punish a suboptimal move from their opponent will be an open question. IMO it would just result in a new opening game playbook that everyone memorizes, and then the decision of where and when to break off from the optimal path will become the differentiator of skill.
And noted on the OP thing, I didn't read that right at all.
Countdown to accusing the chess.com social media rep of being a pedophile...