I don't really see much "reasoning" that they are presenting. Their contributions to this thread have been closer to sealioning than any kind of positive argument or thesis. What do you see in their comments that the rest of us are too stupid and dishonest to engage with, exactly?
>As someone who did math professionally for a long time, I agree with you. I think it has as much value as chess (a game we made up which we play for fun).
I mean, I don't see how this is much different from what I argued, no? Nobody really cares about computer chess all that much at this point except as a benchmark of technological achievement, and except to the extent that it helps human players better understand the game and improve their own play. We still play chess, even though computers can do it better than we can, because we find it interesting.
>As someone who did math professionally for a long time, I agree with you. I think it has as much value as chess (a game we made up which we play for fun).
I mean, I don't see how this is much different from what I argued, no? Nobody really cares about computer chess all that much at this point except as a benchmark of technological achievement, and except to the extent that it helps human players better understand the game and improve their own play. We still play chess, even though computers can do it better than we can, because we find it interesting.