> It's been decades since beating the best computer at chess was possible.

LLMs can do an impressive job of writing code that meets some specification-but they still can’t beat humans at deciding what that specification should be. That’s especially true when it comes to non-functional requirements, e.g. what constitutes good coding style or good architectural choices.

> The major difference being that winning a chess game doesn't yield a permanent artifact that is useful, generally.

Chess has a single clearly defined “win condition”; coding doesn’t.

> They clearly aren't writing for others to read their work.

I don't know, the prose and material is fine in my opinion. I do find the uncapitalized style a bit weird, but it's not something that stops me from reading it.

I still write better code than LLMs. It's just slower, and the quality difference is not usually worth the human effort.

>They clearly aren't writing for others to read their work.

The author of the blog post and the OP who submitted the article are the same person.

but also, throw a weird variation of the game at the computer and it falls apart. Need something novel? llm's wont cut it. Doubly so if what is being done goes against established conventions, even if those are demonstrably wrong, to keep an llm from undermini g everything you first need to show it all the proof and evidence before it can be trusted to help, which for a complex problem can eaisly be 30-50% of co text limits.

LLM's are good at solved problems applied to known or similar to known applications, otherwise they're not going to match humans.