[pmontra]

Well, I'm absolutely sure I can't win a race respecting the rules. I would bet that no HN reader can, even if I don't know if there are pro drivers here.

I add that my bet of winning at Monza (a stop and go track with minimal turning) with a non conforming 100 km/h faster car is optimistic. Honestly, I would brake too early, carry not enough speed through chicanes and corners, waste a huge part of my speed advantage by starting accelerating from lower speed.

I also think that 50+ laps will give me plenty of chances of crashing out even with plenty of training. Maybe even kill myself, as you write.

Maybe I could take pole position with the (very) old format of the best time of two 1 hour sessions on Friday and Saturday. I think it ended in the 90s.

I still don't understand the relationship between your question and the discussion on AIs.

[dmbche]

If only a small, highly trained and specialised group can use a tool to accomplish a task that can't be accomplished by people not from the group, with or without the tool, it shows to me the proficiency of the people using the tool.

You might've missed my sentence about Terrence Tao?

Maybe I'm dense and haven't understood why you've brought up racing?

Edit0: about killing yourself driving: it highlight that the tool can't be considered "the main contributor"to an achievement if 99,99% of people would not achieve the same outcome but would be likely to die from misuse instead. The person that wrangles it and achieves exceptional outcome is all the more to praise in my book.