You do not have to learn stuff 'you hate' to be a contractor. And Go is very much in demand. Surely you could be a contractor using Go? I do not see why you have live in a small town either? You could just a well just live 20-40 min outside city center or in a smaller flat.
I do not think that this article deserves the 2 place on hackernews front-page.
Is it true that the debt-rate in Denmark is high, but that is debt in DKK, which is very importent.
The majority of the real-estate is owned by huge pensions funds and institutions which are also danish.
As other mentioned the numbers do not seem to be normalized either.
I have to disagree with the others.
Since AlphaZero I think chess is closed to being solved.
Technically it is not, but practically is is.
Chess is a hard game to solve completely, and I think
one reason is that there are many states in chess where there is not one superior move, but only a probable optimal move, in the sense that the game-tree for winning against the move is smaller than other moves.
Then the agent/player has to guess what the opponents strategy is given that move, and that depends on the opponent.
I plays are truly creative, and its results speak for itself.
From wiki:
"In AlphaZero's chess match against Stockfish 8 (2016 TCEC world champion), each program was given one minute per move. Stockfish was allocated 64 threads and a hash size of 1 GB,[1] a setting that Stockfish's Tord Romstad later criticized as suboptimal. AlphaZero was trained on chess for a total of nine hours before the match. During the match, AlphaZero ran on a single machine with four application-specific TPUs. In 100 games from the normal starting position, AlphaZero won 25 games as White, won 3 as Black, and drew the remaining 72. In a series of twelve, 100-game matches (of unspecified time or resource constraints) against Stockfish starting from the 12 most popular human openings, AlphaZero won 290, drew 886 and lost 24."
You're making a jump from "AlphaZero plays better than the best programs of its time" to "chess is close to being solved" but that's not justified without much more evidence. There are still a lot of improvements and new ideas added to the top programs and even if they reach a plateau, you'd have to show that increasing time per move 100x doesn't result in a significant improvement in playing strength. We don't know what would be the Elo difference between a 32-piece tablebase and the best existing program but I don't think anybody would bet that it's less than 200 Elo.
Here is a graph of Stockfish's progress since the end of 2015: https://camo.githubusercontent.com/f169f774996346ad146f96f74.... Self-play exaggerates strength differences but it's been a very good rate of progress, even without hardware improvements in the meantime.
A solved game is categorically different from merely teaching a machine to be better at it than humans are presently.
Cepheus [0] is approximately a solution to Heads-Up (two player) Limit (ie the amount you can bet is specified in the game, you don't get to just bet arbitrary money) Texas Hold 'em poker.
In contrast Libratus is an AI that plays Heads-Up No Limit Hold 'em very well against humans.
You can examine the Cepheus strategy for yourself, if you could memorize it (it's too complicated) and were capable of making truly random decisions (Poker is a game of chance and so your strategy needs random action) you could reproduce it and be exactly as good at the game as Cepheus is. You can examine individual strategy elements and reason about them. For example if Cepheus gets an 8 and a 3 and you open with a bet, it will call your bet if they're the same suit, otherwise it will fold. On the other hand if those suited cards were an 8 and a Queen, it would raise a bit more than nine times out of ten.
You can't do anything about it (you might be thinking surely knowing that e.g. Cepheus folds 8-3 off here is valuable so I can benefit from that, er, no, "hiding" that by sometimes playing it loses more money than Cepheus gives up by folding it that's why this is a perfect strategy), if playing Cepheus, even with an incrementally "more" approximate solution you're not going to win a significant amount of money reliably in reasonable time, that's why it's approximately solved.
But Libratus isn't like that, it's playing some strategy that we know beat world class human players, but a further incrementally better AI might crush Libratus just as badly.
I think you misunderstood, and that the point was that in chess, especially during the mid-game phase, there's very often not a single clearly superior move but rather several moves that apparently improves your position by roughly the same amount.
The uncertainty is due to the inability to scan the entire sub-tree for each move.
The theorem you linked to would only be applicable in certain endgame situations.
> there's very often not a single clearly superior move
Maybe it's not clear to human players or current engines, but that does not mean it doesn't exist, and indeed the theorem mentioned above states that at least one player has an optimal strategy (either forcing a draw or winning). Obviously, that does not necessarily mean that we'll ever be able to design an engine that can compute this strategy in a reasonable time.
I just think that OP meant something other than the usual definition of "solved", maybe they meant that engines are plateauing, but as others have pointed out, there is also little evidence for that for now.
Indeed, I was just being a bit pedantic by pointing it out.
edit: so to make it crystal clear, I didn't try to argue chess was solved, just to point out why I think that theorem doesn't really apply to most of chess.
The same could be argued for tic-tac-toe (which is obviously and trivially solved). There are many positions in which there's more than one move that is perfectly playable.
