alt Hacker NewsYou can be so far ahead of someone, their input (if you act on it) can only make things worse. That's it. If a human 'teams up' with chess AI today and does anything other than agree with its moves, it will just drag things down.
You can be so far ahead of someone, their input (if you act on it) can only make things worse. That's it. If a human 'teams up' with chess AI today and does anything other than agree with its moves, it will just drag things down.
But how specifically in Chess?
These human in the loop systems basically lists possible moves with likelihood of winning, no?
So how would the human be a demerit? It'd mean that the human for some reason decided to always use the option that the ai wouldn't take, but how would that make sense? Then the AI would list the "correct" move with a higher likelihood of winning.
The point of this strategy was to mitigate traps, but this would now have to become inverted: the opponent AI would have to be able to gaslight the human into thinking he's stopping his AI from falling into a trap. While that might work in a few cases, the human would quickly learn that his ability to overrule the optimal choice is flawed, thus reverting it back to baseline where the human is essentially a non-factor and not a demerit