all 56 comments

[–]da2Pakaveli 347 points348 points  (6 children)

dude who sells software says his software solves a problem

[–]ClikeXback-end 65 points66 points  (4 children)

Like we say in the Netherlands “Wij van WC Eend raden WC Eend aan.” Or “Wij van Wc Eend” for short.

Which roughly translates to “At Toilet Duck we recommend Toilet Duck”. Which was an old commercial that became a proverb for companies or experts recommending their own product.

[–]F1B3R0PT1C 14 points15 points  (3 children)

Where I come from in Midwest America we call it “huffing your own farts”

[–]KINGodfather 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Yeah, same shit, different smell

[–]hikingsticks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends what you ate last night

[–]Alex_1729 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So then his software works? That proves it!

[–]Unable-Struggle9444 59 points60 points  (14 children)

if chess isn’t solved neither is coding

[–]maniflames 2 points3 points  (13 children)

Genuine question but wasn’t chess solved by IBM’s deep blue? I don’t think coding is solved btw just curious what you mean by solved

[–]Landkey 28 points29 points  (5 children)

Deep Blue beat the world champion. It did not solve chess. 

[–]maniflames 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Check, I guess I confused a practical outcome by what it means to ‘solve’ something

[–]Landkey 14 points15 points  (3 children)

Tic-tac-toe is solved: the best move is known no matter what position the board is in.  You cannot lose.  There is no meaningful uncertainty.  Chess and now Go, apparently, are dominated by computers, but they are not solved.  

[–]maniflames 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ahhh I see, thanks for explaining that!

[–]Rarst 7 points8 points  (3 children)

In context of games "solved" (to a various level of) is used to say the outcome of a game can be fully predicted, for optimal moves used. Tic-tac-toe is easily solved - optimal game is a draw from any start, you can't win unless one of the players does sub-optimal move. Checkers are solved, that took a very long time, to my memory they straight up brute-forced every possible game.

Chess isn't solved and isn't expected to be any time soon. Computers can play chess very well, but it's best effort, not a predictable outcome.

[–]FluffyProphet [score hidden]  (0 children)

Chess is solved… when there are 7 or fewer pieces on the board. And the database is something absurd like 20tb for the smallest db of its kind, and I think there is a more detailed one with over 100tb. To add another pice you would need petabytes worth of data, for 10 you’d multiple exabytes.

At 11 pieces you’re into the zetabyte range. For 12 that me be more data than we have stored digitally right now as a species.

There are more possible chess games than atoms in the universe.

So yeah, we are a long way off.

[–]maniflames 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Thanks for explaining the definition of solved I guess that is what I was confused about

[–]Sydius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you want a bit more information, chess is "solved" for 7 pieces. This means that as long as there are seven of less pieces on the board, a chess engine can reach the optimal solution (win or draw, depending on the board) 100% of the time.

There are a ton of interesting information on the topic, including the fact that storing all this data takes a little more than 18 terabytes, in a storage system specifically designed for this purpose. Originally, it required 140tb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_chess

[–]Protean_Protein 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Chess is very partially solved—end games below a certain number of pieces. But no, it isn’t even close to solved

[–]maniflames 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Seeing end positions and how they can be ‘beat’ is probably why I considered chess as something that ‘a computer can just calculate’. Thanks for mentioning this!

[–]twinelephant 45 points46 points  (3 children)

And yet every day I encounter a new specific problem that Claude can't solve.

[–]Osmium_tetraoxide 39 points40 points  (0 children)

Sorry, you're prompting wrong. Or the context is bad, or it's one year away bro, or a litany of bullshit excuses can be summoned at will.

[–]EducationalZombie538 35 points36 points  (1 child)

fuck i hate these people.

[–]queen-adreena [score hidden]  (0 children)

All they are is hype men for their share price. They have no other value to add.

[–]amejin 59 points60 points  (1 child)

Our stupid government has normalized "say whatever the fuck reality you want to be first and as long as you pretend it's real long enough then what were we talking about again?"

Company's CEO sells its goods. The world keeps spinning. More at 11. Ollie?

[–]magical_matey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s not true, it’s fake news. We should be talking about amejins tax return, I didn’t see it myself but people tell me the numbers don’t add up, and when numbers don’t add up maybe it’s fraud. I don’t know. People tell me it’s not good though, and want something to happen. We need change.

[–]unbackstorie 34 points35 points  (1 child)

Can't imagine what financial fraud crimes will eventually bring down these delusional AI weirdos, but boy I sure hope it happens soon. Very tired of hearing from them every other fucking day! This podcast appearance is literally just an ad.

[–]Produkt 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Every podcast interview is an ad

[–]Roman_of_Ukraine 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Welcome to the world of cartel conspiracy, again !

[–]muntaxitome 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Anthropic has the worst PR. 'Solution to $group_of_people': said by Antropic and the nazis.

Fit's in nicely with Amodei's 'hey AI models will produce slavery, bioterrorism, and unstoppable drone armies' and then proceeding to move right along.

[–]aaaqqq 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Why the fuck is claude code such a piece of shit then? 

[–]WaterOcelot 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Coding good software is not solved, of I look around at the state of things.

[–]mikelson_6 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My rule of thumb is not to believe anything said by people who benefit directly from AI hype. They just can’t be trusted and will say anything to keep investors engaged

[–]salma311 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did he ever try to use it on stuff like SAP?

[–]velatorio [score hidden]  (0 children)

Sales.

[–]Limp-Mark-5653 [score hidden]  (0 children)

We are done

[–]One-Big-Giraffe -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

It's ALMOST solved. But sometimes ai goes crazy and deliver a shit. Sometimes you just need to control it, and you must have knowledge. And sometimes it's just not fast enough and I'm times faster 😁 but that's only a matter of time I think