• db2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days ago

    The replacing part is the problem. Using a local system to help is fine, but it still requires humans who know what they’re doing and what they’re looking at.

    • iopq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      Sometimes, for example human + AI systems used to be better than either one in isolation, but chess AI improved so much that the human partner is actually not helping anymore

      • saimen@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        But chess is an isolated “system” with clear rules. Reality and especially medicine is so much more complicated.

        • iopq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          19 days ago

          Chess strategy is extremely complicated and probably will never be completely solved. It will be almost solved like checkers eventually when programs will just draw vs. each other or a white win is found

          But we will never actually simulate all games since the number of chess games dwarfs the number of atoms in the universe. So in that sense we will never know what the “correct” move is outside of table base or mate situations. Medicine may actually be less complicated to a machine.

          Bu the only benchmark should be “how good the humans are at a task” since you’re not trying to be perfect. You only have to provide better results than the current system.