Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Meg0510 t1_ituupxu wrote

Chess I think is a great example. It's been 25 years since Kasparov was defeated by a program--but did human chess players get replaced by digital ones?

No--in fact, chess is now livelier than ever. And I think we can extend it to other areas--we're never going to watch F1 driven by self-driving cars, 100-meters races ran by super-running bots, jeopardy played by super search engines, etc.

(One can ofc envision a future where robots have their own sports--maybe a 100-miles race ran by super-running robots could be interesting, idk. But we value competition because the players are human beings, and we become impressed by their performance because they're hard to perform by other human beings--otherwise Magnus Carlsen would be of no interest to the world.)

So inter competetition seems to be at least one domain that's irreplaceable by machines, human nature being that we value competition with other people.

Edit: spelling

6

SWATSgradyBABY t1_itvw7u3 wrote

There is no profit incentive to getting rid of chess players. This is not a good example for that reason. There will be a good reason for hospitals to get rid of radiologists if software can perform the job as well or better. The software can be licensed at a rate probably 1/100th the cost of a human radiologist with his/her retirement account, healthcare, dental, vision plan and plenty of other benefits. There is no incentive to get rid of chess players.

2

Meg0510 t1_itvx3ya wrote

> what sort of "future-proof" field(s) should I be looking into as a way to maintain (for lack of a better term) viability?

Yes, hence an answer to the question posted in the title

3