- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Are you missing threats in your games?

AI will soon remove the need for chess coaches if it's not there already. It's the same in many different areas of course. It's neither good or bad. It's just the way it is.

AI will soon remove the need for chess coaches if it's not there already. It's the same in many different areas of course. It's neither good or bad. It's just the way it is.

@nightfox said in #1:

Comments on lichess.org/@/nightfox/blog/are-you-missing-threats-in-your-games/oJxbqV2Z

@Benedictine said in #2:

AI will soon remove the need for chess coaches if it's not there already. It's the same in many different areas of course. It's neither good or bad. It's just the way it is.

AI may remove the need for chess coaches and mentors with regard to the technical side of chess (a huge arena in itself). It likely will not remove the human psychological need for teachers, coaches and mentors.

What AI does not have is consciousness; not affective and qualia consciousness or at least not human affective and qualia consciousness. I would argue that this matters. Sure, AI can give certain answers like this "ne5??" or this;

"Affective consciousness, also known as feeling consciousness, is about the core emotional feelings and reactions we experience. Qualia consciousness, on the other hand, refers to the subjective, qualitative aspects of experience, such as the "what it feels like" to see red or taste a lemon."

I primarily see everything about living biological entities and species through an evolutionary "lens". Only secondarily do I see things through a cultural lens for humans. If any structure or process occurs with frequency in multiple individuals and generations of an extant species, it exists because it confers a survival and reproductive advantage. From this perspective, we must conclude that human consciousness and "standard" human affects, psychological processes (like love, hate and imitative rivalry) and qualia exist (have evolved) because they confer survival and evolutionary advantage in some way.

We are currently wired as individuals within a social and indeed eusocial species to need nurturers, carers, teachers and mentors. I mean these terms in their broadest senses. So "teacher" here does not just mean "school teacher" for example. Our motivations, beyond the satisfactions of basic physiological needs, come from our eusocial needs for attachment figures, helping figures and imitation figures, the latter very often as targets for direct imitative rivalry.

What non-conscious or non-human-conscious AI cannot have is human affective and qualia consciousness. It cannot have this style of consciousness because it cannot have human experiences. I would further argue that AI cannot and does not have consciousness at all or cannot have this until AI is run on biological, organic computers and platforms. But I will stick here with the easier form of the argument. AI cannot have human consciousness because it cannot have human experiences. If it cannot have human experiences it cannot have human motivations, including imitative modelling and imitative rivalry.

This matters because only a good human coach or mentor can supply the developmental nurture (best word) for positive imitative modelling and well-channelled (and properly moderated) imitative rivalry.

This is not to devalue the power of AI to help in chess coaching and self-coaching. or at least in self-teaching. One good human coach may well be able to coach a bigger "stable" of players with these tools. Poor human chess coaches may well fall by the wayside and need a new profession or income.

@nightfox said in #1: > Comments on lichess.org/@/nightfox/blog/are-you-missing-threats-in-your-games/oJxbqV2Z @Benedictine said in #2: > AI will soon remove the need for chess coaches if it's not there already. It's the same in many different areas of course. It's neither good or bad. It's just the way it is. AI may remove the need for chess coaches and mentors with regard to the technical side of chess (a huge arena in itself). It likely will not remove the human psychological need for teachers, coaches and mentors. What AI does not have is consciousness; not affective and qualia consciousness or at least not *human* affective and qualia consciousness. I would argue that this matters. Sure, AI can give certain answers like this "ne5??" or this; "Affective consciousness, also known as feeling consciousness, is about the core emotional feelings and reactions we experience. Qualia consciousness, on the other hand, refers to the subjective, qualitative aspects of experience, such as the "what it feels like" to see red or taste a lemon." I primarily see everything about living biological entities and species through an evolutionary "lens". Only secondarily do I see things through a cultural lens for humans. If any structure or process occurs with frequency in multiple individuals and generations of an extant species, it exists because it confers a survival and reproductive advantage. From this perspective, we must conclude that human consciousness and "standard" human affects, psychological processes (like love, hate and imitative rivalry) and qualia exist (have evolved) because they confer survival and evolutionary advantage in some way. We are currently wired as individuals within a social and indeed eusocial species to need nurturers, carers, teachers and mentors. I mean these terms in their broadest senses. So "teacher" here does not just mean "school teacher" for example. Our motivations, beyond the satisfactions of basic physiological needs, come from our eusocial needs for attachment figures, helping figures and imitation figures, the latter very often as targets for direct imitative rivalry. What non-conscious or non-human-conscious AI cannot have is *human* affective and qualia consciousness. It cannot have this style of consciousness because it cannot have human experiences. I would further argue that AI cannot and does not have consciousness at all or cannot have this until AI is run on biological, organic computers and platforms. But I will stick here with the easier form of the argument. AI cannot have human consciousness because it cannot have human experiences. If it cannot have human experiences it cannot have human motivations, including imitative modelling and imitative rivalry. This matters because only a good human coach or mentor can supply the developmental nurture (best word) for positive imitative modelling and well-channelled (and properly moderated) imitative rivalry. This is not to devalue the power of AI to help in chess coaching and self-coaching. or at least in self-teaching. One good human coach may well be able to coach a bigger "stable" of players with these tools. Poor human chess coaches may well fall by the wayside and need a new profession or income.

Yes, there will still be need for the human element, that's true. In terms from learning from game play people who are skilled enough can use the engine to help but now chat interpretation makes this even easier. It's an excellent learning tool potentially.

Yes, there will still be need for the human element, that's true. In terms from learning from game play people who are skilled enough can use the engine to help but now chat interpretation makes this even easier. It's an excellent learning tool potentially.

@Benedictine said in #4:

Yes, there will still be need for the human element, that's true. In terms from learning from game play people who are skilled enough can use the engine to help but now chat interpretation makes this even easier. It's an excellent learning tool potentially.

There are many excellent learning tools now for sure. Trouble is, I don't have the time, energy and mental pace to learn them. This is not an idle claim. The snail pace of my thinking (as an oldie) has been brought home to me in recent months not only by the times it takes me to do simple, moderate and complicated puzzles but also by the time it takes me to learn new tools. My thinking moves like a fish in treacle.

Of course, I am making the mistake of focussing on my own dilemma. For young people these tools are great. They can learn their use in a trice and then learn chess things extremely rapidly.

@Benedictine said in #4: > Yes, there will still be need for the human element, that's true. In terms from learning from game play people who are skilled enough can use the engine to help but now chat interpretation makes this even easier. It's an excellent learning tool potentially. There are many excellent learning tools now for sure. Trouble is, I don't have the time, energy and mental pace to learn them. This is not an idle claim. The snail pace of my thinking (as an oldie) has been brought home to me in recent months not only by the times it takes me to do simple, moderate and complicated puzzles but also by the time it takes me to learn new tools. My thinking moves like a fish in treacle. Of course, I am making the mistake of focussing on my own dilemma. For young people these tools are great. They can learn their use in a trice and then learn chess things extremely rapidly.

I'm not missing threats, quite the opposite is the case actually: if I do get threatened (example: "f**k you, bastert, I kil you!"), I report it to the admins and my opponent hopefully gets banned for his threat.

I'm not missing threats, quite the opposite is the case actually: if I do get threatened (example: "f**k you, bastert, I kil you!"), I report it to the admins and my opponent hopefully gets banned for his threat.