[treprinum]

What happens to science when the most talented kids won't be able to compete in ~2 years tops? Would our civilization reach plateau or start downward trajectory as there will be no incentive to torture oneself to become the best in the world? Will it all fade away like chess once computers started beating grandmasters?

[ironlake]

Chess is immensely more popular since Deep Blue beat Kasparov.

[treprinum]

Chess was the drosophila of AI - something one could study in detail and invent newer and newer approaches to solving it. It's no longer having that function, was surpassed by Go for a brief moment until that one got solved as well. A whole generation that was raised on this drosophila is slowly fading away, for the new entrants its no longer the game to beat, more like brain stimulating fun exercise/hobby and not something capturing imagination, telling us something about the very base of our intelligence anymore.

[jstummbillig]

True, but the fun is currently derived from humans going up against humans as a sport. Machines are tools (for learning or cheating) but we are not interested in competition with them.

How will it work for math, where humans do useful work right now? I can not see battle math becoming a big thing, but maybe when some of the tedious stuff goes away math will be philosophy and poking the smarter system is where entertainment can be had?

[hiAndrewQuinn]

I've accepted that the human form, with its ~3 pounds of not especially optimized brainpower, is basically going to be relegated to the same status as demoscene hardware for anything that matters after this century.

That's cool by me, though. This bit of demoscene hardware experiences qualia, and that combination is weird and cool enough to make me want to push myself in new and weird directions. That's what play is in a way.

[lacker]

The incentive to compete in the IMO is that it's fun to do math contests, it's fun to win math contests, and (if you think that far ahead as a high schooler) it looks good on your resume. None of that incentive will go away if the computers get better at math contests.

[jhbadger]

People still compete in foot races even though cars can go faster. People still play chess and Go even though computers can beat them.

[treprinum]

I'd be super demoralized if anything I could do a future pocket machine could do much better and faster. Like my very best is not enough to even tread water.

[gowld]

That applies to most things humans so for fun.

No one needs these contest math problems solved -- by requirement, they are solved before any student attempts them.

[sdenton4]

We just need a Netflix series about a geometry prodigy with excellent fashion sense.

[Agingcoder]

I never studied math to become the best in the world !

[treprinum]

Are you an Olympiad Gold Medalist? Did you move the field of math significantly (beyond a basic PhD)?

[jeanloolz]

Chess never faded away. It actually has never been as big as it is today.

[treprinum]

That might be true in the number of active chess players, but it's no longer viewed as a peak intellectual game and the magic is long gone, just another intense hobby some people do, but basic machines can do better.

[westcoast49]

It’a still viewed as a peak intellectual game. And the magic is still there, just watch or listen to the fans of Magnus Carlsen when they’re viewing, discussing or analyzing his games.

[mewpmewp2]

Maybe not the peak intellectual game, because there are overall so many other games, digital as well, but it is unaffected from the fact that computers have beat humans.

[WalterSear]

The same thing that happened when they allowed calculators in the classroom.

[imranq]

Unless you can figure out AI that is available everywhere, all the time (even in the most remote jungle with no power), there will always be value in making humans smarter

[EvgeniyZh]

I don't think chess faded away