Get your free personalized podcast brief
We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.
The fear that AI will cause a widespread "death of meaning" may be overstated. In domains like chess, where AI is already superhuman, human interest hasn't died; it's grown. People still enjoy competing against other humans, even knowing they can't beat the top AI.
Related Insights
The fear that AI homogenizes culture is countered by the game of Go. After AlphaGo's 2016 victory, human decision quality surged. Players learned from the AI and began developing novel moves distinct from both prior human strategies and the AI's own plays, ultimately improving the overall level of human skill.
Like chess players who still compete despite AI's dominance, humans will continue practicing skills like writing or design even when AI is better. The fear that AI will make human skill obsolete misses the point. The intrinsic motivation comes from the journey of improvement and the act of creation itself.
Contrary to fears, AI surpassing human ability has fueled chess's popularity. AI engines are used as personalized coaches in products like Chess.com, analyzing games and helping millions of users learn and improve, making the game more accessible.
An AI achieving a gold medal in the International Math Olympiad doesn't devalue human competition. The focus remains on human creativity and achievement within our cognitive limits, just as we celebrate athletes even though machines can outperform them physically. The competition remains a valid benchmark of human intellect.
Drawing parallels to chess and Go, Demis Hassabis argues that AI's superiority doesn't kill human competition. Instead, it creates a new "knowledge pool" for humans to learn from. The current top Go player is stronger than any before him precisely because he grew up studying AlphaGo's strategies, suggesting AI tools will elevate, not replace, top human talent.
Philosopher Nick Bostrom suggests that even if AI surpasses human intellect in fields like theoretical mathematics, it won't eliminate human engagement. Instead, these pursuits may evolve into hobbies appreciated for the process and social connection, much like chess has remained popular despite computer dominance.
In a post-work world, sports and games like chess offer a durable source of meaning because they are based on artificially constructed scarcity and rules. Even with superhuman AIs, humans will continue to value human-vs-human competition, making these activities one of the few AI-proof jobs and sources of purpose.
AI’s rise is an invitation to shed tasks machines do better (speed, scale) and double down on irreplaceable human qualities like identity, creativity, and judgment. Instead of a threat to outrun, it’s a mirror reflecting what makes us uniquely valuable.
Even when AI performs tasks like chess at a superhuman level, humans still gravitate towards watching other imperfect humans compete. This suggests our engagement stems from fallibility, surprise, and the shared experience of making mistakes—qualities that perfectly optimized AI lacks, limiting its cultural replacement of human performance.
When computers surpassed humans at chess, many predicted the game's demise. Instead, AI tools became powerful coaches that helped players improve faster and understand the game more deeply, leading to a massive surge in popularity and more exciting human vs. human matches.
