Hacker News Reader

Comment by WalterBright | Hacker News Reader

I long ago lost the remotest interest in who wins a baseball/tennis/football/olympic game, as it's meaningless. I know people get all wrapped around the axle on who wins, and the ludicrous propaganda of "medal counts" in the Olympics. But it's not for me.

I have found it interesting to write software to play chess for me. The last few times I tried to play chess, my mind would just drift off designing a program to do it so I wouldn't have to bother.

I don't play video games, either. It takes about 3 minutes for one to bore me to tears. Part of that is I had a job in college testing video games - that sure ruined it for me.

The universe is full of puzzles that mean something to solve. Why not work on those instead? Why would those be less interesting than a contrived set of rules?

View on HN

> The universe is full of puzzles that mean something to solve. Why not work on those instead? Why would those be less interesting than a contrived set of rules?

Because those rules are designed (often iteratively) to be interesting. They have exactly the right rate of progress/reward to be engaging. In some research areas today it takes two years of postgrad work just to get to the point where you're capable of doing original research - and there's no guarantee that you'll produce anything useful even then.

Acquiring mastery of a skill is a fun experience, and drives a lot of human activity. Certainly most e.g. programming language designers seem to enjoy the skill and craft of doing it; I'm not at all convinced that that's not the real motivation for that activity, however much people claim to be driven by practical value or monetary reward.

Ultimately meaning is what we make it. People tend to enjoy games because they feel that they reflect something meaningful; a game is a "toy model" of reality, but toy models can be useful. There's a reason we consider these games to be interesting challenges and measures of progress for the same AIs that we also want to be able to e.g. drive cars.

> Why would those be less interesting than a contrived set of rules?

Because "contrived rules" are a kind of work of art. This is especially evident in modern board games as the concept of "contrived rules" is refined more and more and in ever branching variations.

Time enjoyed is not time wasted. Dedicating one's entire free time to solving the mysteries of the universe will likely lead to failure. You have to step away from the task every now and then and enjoy mindless entertainment. You have to reset every now and then. I have spent countless hours on difficult programming problems only for the solution to "come to me" while mindlessly gaming, or taking a shower, or smoking a cig. The solution becomes clear when you're not thinking of the problem sometimes. There is research that indicates this is a real phenomenon.

Oh, I agree that after working a long time on difficult problems, I need a rest with mindless entertainment. For example, after finals week in college I'd go home, and just veg in front of the TV for a few days. Then I'd get bored and was ready to start the next semester.

It's just like doing hard physical work. Ya need a rest afterwards.

Chess isn't mindless entertainment. I don't see it as rest.

Solutions to difficult problems often come to me while I'm jogging. Something something about increased blood flow to brain? Yesterday I went out for a long walk, and thought of a much simpler solution than one I was going to implement. A very worthwhile walk!

Nicely said, and I think I agree for the most part. I'm not necessarily sold on there being intrinsic meaning to the universe's puzzles, as opposed to more artificial ones. I suppose one could argue either fairly convincingly, and it'd very quickly become an abstract, philosophical discussion about the meaning of life and everything. In the end, I'd recommend everyone to do whatever is the most meaningful for them, personally. I don't think we can necessarily impose a strict ordering of correctness on their views, but who knows, I may be wrong.

> The universe is full of puzzles that mean something to solve. Why not work on those instead? Why would those be less interesting than a contrived set of rules?

Can you give some examples? Most things I'm aware of that could be classified as puzzles require, at the very least, enormous time investment, if not specialization, and there's often lots of drudgery along the way.

> Can you give some examples?

Sure.

How can I get the D programming language to generate even faster code?

How can I take this piece of existing, working, kludgy code, and make it simple and elegant?

How do I distill the advantages of D into an elevator pitch?

What is the right combination of aftermarket parts that will make the engine in my Dodge deliver the characteristics I want?

How do I salvage a relationship with a valued colleague that has gone awry?

How do I optimize my investments to maximize returns?

I could go on forever.

  >>  last few times I tried to play chess, my mind would just drift off designing a program to do it so I wouldn't have to bother.

That describes exactly how I feel about Sudoku.

I do find a good game of chess to be enjoyable, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com