[ACCount37]

"AI effect" is long known and pretty well documented.

When AI beat humans at chess, it didn't result in humans revising their idea of the capabilities of machine intelligence upwards. It resulted in humans revising their notion of how much intelligence is required to play chess at world champion level downwards, and by a lot.

Clearly, there's some sort of psychological defense mechanism in play. First, we see "AI could never do X". Then an AI does X, and the sentiment flips to "X has never required any intelligence in the first place".

[goalieca]

I think it’s fairly safe to say that chess can be modelled as a math problem and does not require _general_ intelligence to solve.

[ACCount37]

I think it's fairly safe to say that "X can be modeled as a math problem and does not require _general_ intelligence to solve" for any X that general intelligence can solve. Some math problems are just more complicated than others.