This video disproves that theory, it's a GM explaining the analysis he performed during a game he's just played in an interview:
5,974 karma · joined January 5, 2018
I think cars became a lot more aerodynamic which makes comparisons difficult.
When I installed a roof rack on my car, it was full of insects after a trip. I don't know how the amount of insects would compare to decades ago though.
Even if they wanted to, I highly doubt they could push the industry to do that. The industry does what it wants to do, and rewriting tons of software was far from its priorities. There were no LLMs back then to help with such a massive migration.
There's also the fact that rewriting software tends to introduce a lot of new bugs.
[Hanlon's Razor] This is such a contrived performance drop scenario that I find it hard to believe it was done with the purpose you're inferring.
I'd interpret this as Nvidia not caring that much about Linux desktops/laptops once again (as opposed to Windows desktops/laptops), rather than anything to do with local vs cloud.
TIL. Nice word.
Those critical moments are a big part of the difference between a GM and a good club player though. If a GM was somehow handicapped to not calculate such tactics, I think lesser players would be able to draw games against GMs much more often.
I agree that GMs can avoid calculation in many positions (e.g. openings as you said), but the value of broader and deeper calculation is still huge in chess.
It's not one and the same, but strategy patterns are definitely a thing too.
There are:
- tactical patterns (e.g. "back rank checkmate", or "pair of pieces that can be forked by a pawn");
- strategy patterns (e.g. "knights are good in closed positions", or "in a same-colour bishop endgame, put your pawns on the colour opposite to the bishops").
There's also calculation ability which also partly relies on patterns one has seen before.
> the average chess grandmaster during a classical game will analyze roughly the same number of moves as an amateur player, but they analyze only the most critical moves and do a better job with that analysis.
I don't buy this. I've seen GMs playing online while verbalizing their thought process (on twitch / youtube videos where they livestream their play), and they consider way more branches than I do, while also going deeper than I ever would on some branches. My top rating in lichess blitz is about 1900, not bad but way lower than a GM.
This sentence doesn't align very well with your other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50350548
I think almost all companies would laugh at you if you tried to reduce the number of tokens you can use for more salary. The tokens are stuff you can use to be productive at work, I expect that companies that take tokens seriously enough to mention them before you start wouldn't like that at all.
Including the fact that it's probably not true.
If something is compensation, it can often be negotiated and traded off against other compensation components. How many people have successfully negotiated AI tokens away in favour of salary/bonus/stock? I'm going to guess "approximately zero".
What they are really good at is writing boilerplate and reading API documentation / example code. Avoiding subtle errors is not what they're good at in my experience.
That makes sense - I don't know if that's what the blog post was implying though. Ironically, this blog post could probably benefit from a few more details about what the meeting was supposed to achieve :)
I should have been clearer.
When I said that good leaders pay attention to things from the bottom-up, that doesn't mean they always know everything needed for any discussion. It just means they are able and keen to understand the low-level details when they matter, because they routinely look at such details in the projects that they're involved in.
Of course it's possible that this story is just told badly and the SVP already knew the technical details, in which case the blog post is a bit misleading.
> I need them to tell me what we're going to change, and it needs to be a BIG systemic change, not minutiae, which is where many engineers thrive.
How can one know if the engineers' proposed "BIG systemic change" is appropriate and complete, without knowing the details of the problem it is addressing?
Something about this feels wrong:
- If you trust them completely, you don't need to know what happens next either. Just trust them to do the right things, your leadership isn't required.
- If you don't trust them completely, how can you know if "what happens next" is appropriate without knowing the details?
Isn't this just reinforcing the idea that leadership doesn't need to have their feet on the ground?
The best leaders I've worked with were paying attention to things from the bottom-up as well as top-down.
> https://lichess.org/lwiPq9wB#48
When I go to that link it shows Black is winning with -1.9 eval at depth 32 with SF19 1MB NNUE! It looks like it got this evaluation from the cloud database.
- it teaches resiliency in bad situations.
- it teaches you to not be too harsh on yourself as a person. If you watch GMs playing online, they make bad mistakes all the time too - they're not godlike creatures who make no mistakes, far from it.
The flipside is that if you approach it the wrong way (I know I have at many points), it can have the opposite effects too.
To approach chess in a mentally healthy way was a long process for me. You need to get rid of your ego and be objective as much as possible when playing, or it will just make you sour - this in itself is a valuable lesson.
I don't think the comments are missing that at all. If the Lean compiler itself is bug-free, we can trust its verification of the 13 million lines of code. We don't need to verify them by hand.
The encoding of the theorem itself needs to be trusted, as does the compiler. The proof doesn't need to be trusted, it gets checked by the compiler.
Is this also the case for Go's joseki? Or is any deviation easy to punish?