The canonical game attempting to be computer hardened is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arimaa and it did pretty well... for a while. Admittedly there's less human expertise than chess, but we've been surpassed.
Your question would make a good answer for itself. Ask the AI to design a game in which a human would be better than the AI. And then we'll see if your human readers can do better than what the AI comes up with.
Also: how, pray tell, did researchers determine the attractiveness of the primates in that study? Tinder? But seriously... Human standards aren't that relevant, so on what basis do they claim the primates didn't select for attractiveness?
(You'd have to quantify "better" differently - the "best" dnd game is one that's spontaneous and fun. Maybe have the players rate each other at the end of a session and the highest score wins?)
another argument against 100% end-of-term exams from a statistics/econometrics viewpoint: assume the students actual grasp of the topic is the true but unobservable population parameter we seek to estimate using some examination-format. Estimating the true parameter from one observation (i.e. the one-off end-term exam) should yield a lot more variance (i.e. if we we're to repeat the one-off example in countless parallel universes and write down the distribution of exam grades) than a weighed estimation from multiple observations (i.e. a composite grade from homework, mid- and end-term exams). Thus, from an empirical standpoint I'd consider the composite grade a better estimation of the students 'true' grasp of the topic.
Humans are better at soccer
Tyler Cowen links to a book that covers most of what you're asking about the Industrial Revolution today on MR.
The canonical game attempting to be computer hardened is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arimaa and it did pretty well... for a while. Admittedly there's less human expertise than chess, but we've been surpassed.
Your question would make a good answer for itself. Ask the AI to design a game in which a human would be better than the AI. And then we'll see if your human readers can do better than what the AI comes up with.
Also: how, pray tell, did researchers determine the attractiveness of the primates in that study? Tinder? But seriously... Human standards aren't that relevant, so on what basis do they claim the primates didn't select for attractiveness?
Humans are better at DnD and Calvinball
(You'd have to quantify "better" differently - the "best" dnd game is one that's spontaneous and fun. Maybe have the players rate each other at the end of a session and the highest score wins?)
another argument against 100% end-of-term exams from a statistics/econometrics viewpoint: assume the students actual grasp of the topic is the true but unobservable population parameter we seek to estimate using some examination-format. Estimating the true parameter from one observation (i.e. the one-off end-term exam) should yield a lot more variance (i.e. if we we're to repeat the one-off example in countless parallel universes and write down the distribution of exam grades) than a weighed estimation from multiple observations (i.e. a composite grade from homework, mid- and end-term exams). Thus, from an empirical standpoint I'd consider the composite grade a better estimation of the students 'true' grasp of the topic.
This post has (some) of what you’re looking for re: Industrial Revolution
https://daviskedrosky.substack.com/p/the-last-crusade?r=rrmvm&utm_medium=ios
Typo: after the paragraph break, the next line starts in the middle of a sentence.
"no one will sue you even if your advice was bad.
doesn’t, they risk being held negligent."