The same reasons we keep on teaching kids to read, write, do math, sketch, take photos, etc ... because it is fun, empowering and important.
Most of them will never become professional actors, authors, mathematicians, artists, photographers, etc ... and yet they will rely on those skills, on their own or combined, pretty much every single day of their lives.
I'm a software engineer turned public middle school science teacher.
At the moment, I would never encourage any of my students to go into software engineering. It seems to me that's rapidly becoming a field where a small competitive handful will be making millions and everyone else will be unemployed.
That said, I have no problem teaching some programming. We're going to be making autonomous greenhouses soon, with windows that open or whatever, and they'll be using Scratch to program their micro:bits.
Anything that empowers you to do stuff is a good thing.
If you're thinking that LLMs will be doing all the coding, well, in my experience I get far better results from the model when I say "Write me a function that does X. It should take parameters Y and Z, and its validation step should check for conditions A, B, and C" than when I say "Write me a function that does X" without any further guidance. With no guidance, the LLM can run off in weird directions, and if you don't have any programming experience, you might not realize why those directions are bad ideas.
LLMs, at least the current crop, are skill multipliers. If your skill is positive and large, you'll get great results. If your skill is positive and small, you'll get small results. If your skill is negative, the LLM will harm you more than it helps you.
Why build pine wood derby cars? Why paint pictures? Or take photographs? Why memorize poetry? Why build things with Legos?
Because it makes your brain think through problems, breaking them down to the point you can build a solution from the smallest pieces. AI may be a big part of the future, but we need to maintain our own human creativity and problem solving skills, and learning the tools that are available will help us to build and create useful things throughout our lives.
I’m sympathetic to the concern, but I’m still unclear on what the concrete ask is.
If the worry is that AI companies are turning open problems into benchmarks and potentially “using up” fertile mathematical problems before humans can develop the ideas around them, what exactly should the companies do differently? Also why does discovering the answers preclude humans developing ideas from them? I don't get why solving a math problem stops anyone from doing that?
Should they (AI companies) avoid training or evaluating models on open problems? Solve them but not publish the results? Delay publication? Only release proofs after mathematicians have had time to study them? Require some attribution or review process?
The statement makes a strong case that “maximize the number of solved problems” may be the wrong objective, but it seems much less clear about what behavior they actually want from OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, etc.
I’d be interested in the most concrete version of the proposal. Without that, it starts to read a little like: "Please stop getting so good at our thing!"
> If the worry is that AI companies are turning open problems into benchmarks and potentially “using up” fertile mathematical problems before humans can develop the ideas around them, what exactly should the companies do differently?
Just stop doing that. Don't treat unsolved math problems as some cheap benchmark to beat.
Leave the math for mathematicians, and let them use AI in a way that helps the field, not in a way that harms it.
There is a very tangible benefit to people playing in chess that has nothing to do with the game itself. One example is for kids - I think kids playing chess (particularly over the board) learn quite a lot from the game. For example, etiquette (being respectful to your opponent), patience, logic, etc… but one of the best things they learn is how to lose. In chess you lose a lot. Asymptotically vast majority of players will lose approximately 50% of their games. Learning how to lose (respectfully), learn from your mistakes, then overcome them is really great process to learn. Doing this in real life rather than over the screen is also completely different.
Combine that with the game being fun and the social aspects (meeting new people, making friends)… chess very much transfers to real life in my view
So a lot of games/sports kids could cry out - "that is not fair". There is an element of luck in most board games.
Chess is the first board game you can introduce to your kid that has no element of luck whatsoever. It could be brutal. I have seen 7-9 year olds coming out crying after a game in a tournament. But it also may be requires very good parenting to handle all the emotional distress. Chess also is obviously accessible.
It is an emotional rollercoaster to engage kids in Chess tbh. We are ready to sometimes throw the towel every other week. :-)
i used to play poker casually, and the part that I found most interesting and most useful was not the reading other peoples' body language / tells or the probability calculations, but rather the practicing of regulating my own emotions
LOL. So here is the truth: I named it because my oldest son was really into the “67” meme. I was trying to come up with a domain name, everything decent seemed taken, and chess67.com was available.
I figured it would just be a temporary name until I came up with something better.
Then it stuck. I will say it has been easy for my customers to remember the name!
I wonder how this would do with Thinky.gg games (Pathology or Sokopath). Are you familiar with the site? There's a group of engineers working on various types of solvers in the thinky.gg discord too.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. Regulatory teams exist to make sure companies comply with actual laws and regulations. There's a relatively objective standard they're enforcing.
Big tech has the same thing in its legal and compliance teams, and those teams absolutely can kill projects. That's pretty different from an amorphous "ethics" committee deciding what is or isn't ethical based on much more subjective criteria.
reply