I don't understand what's the point in this debate.
Sports is a human designed concept to group some competetive activities. Whether less physical activities like chess fits in the definition is also decided by humans - nobodys opinion is better than the others. If one decides to draw the line in physicality, fine - include chess in some other concept. That's it.
chat gpt
It is a sad commentary on posters here when a statistics-based writing app manages to construct the most intelligent contribution to a thread with nearly 700 posts.
It's an AI and unfortunately most humans suck at english it isn't that the ai constructs the most intelligent contribution it's that it sounds way smarter than it actually is I have a feeling it's due to correct grammar and using big words
I’ve had long arguments with ChatGPT, but these two sentences are the clearest expression I’ve seen of what I’ve been arguing in these threads for nearly ten years.
“At its core, sport involves competitive engagement that demands skill, strategy, and training. Chess embodies these elements profoundly.”
Except for one thing. Chess is not a competitive physical engagement. It can demand skill, strategy and training though.
Do you think that clear expression of what a sport is meant to include things like making dinner, driving to work, arguing for a raise or mowing the lawn?
Can you ever address the words actually present in a claim without resorting to the reductio ad absurdum fallacy?
AI stated: “At its core, sport involves competitive engagement that demands skill, strategy, and training. Chess embodies these elements profoundly.”
I did. That's exactly why I asked what I asked. Making dinner, arguing for a raise, etc. Competitive engagement that demands skill, strategy and training.
Do you think that clear expression was meant to include those, and a thousand other mundane every day activities?
chat gpt
It is a sad commentary on posters here when a statistics-based writing app manages to construct the most intelligent contribution to a thread with nearly 700 posts.
It's an AI and unfortunately most humans suck at english it isn't that the ai constructs the most intelligent contribution it's that it sounds way smarter than it actually is I have a feeling it's due to correct grammar and using big words
Kids can't tell the difference, yeah. They think big words and grammar = well said. In this case chat GPT made good points though.
In fact this was one of the best copy-pastes of it I've seen. Most times it's missing the mark a bit by being both too superficial and factually inaccurate (or just wrong).
Actually a lot of kids can tell the difference they use chat gpt more than most adults lol
If anything kids trick certain teachers all the time with using chat gpt lol
But it's not REQUIRED
I gave an example of how it's not required in shooting either. In fact they have all manner of weapon (not just rockets) that aim and hit without human input, from artillery to even rifles.
It is absolutely required in shooting. Since we are talking about sports (recreational competitions) I doubt rockets and artillery would be considered. But for rifles and normal guns I'll bet they ALL require human physical effort and skill to set up, aim, and pull the trigger. If they didn't, they wouldn't be sports.
All sports REQUIRE the participant to be the one who does those things. They cannot be proxied off to someone else. In the shooting example, if Ziryab sets everything up (he makes the bullets, he loads the gun, he positions the gun at the shooting range, etc) and then you go up to it and pull the trigger, do I get the credit for the bullseye? Who gets the credit for the bullseye?
Shooting is no different than any other sport, the participant must actually participate. The basketball player must make the basket, the golfer must sink the putt, the javelin thrower must throw the javelin, etc.
But chess is not a sport, which is why the chess player is under no obligation to move the pieces. All the chess player has to do is think, and relay his intentions. No sports allow that. None.
I don't understand what's the point in this debate.
Sports is a human designed concept to group some competetive activities. Whether less physical activities like chess fits in the definition is also decided by humans - nobodys opinion is better than the others. If one decides to draw the line in physicality, fine - include chess in some other concept. That's it.
We have a social constructionist in our midst!
Be careful. If you inform the dogmatists here that dictionary definitions are also constantly in revision and wholly human determined, you should be prepared for attacks. More than likely these will include personal attacks from one who always cries about personal attacks when his views are shown to be deficient.
If anything kids trick certain teachers all the time with using chat gpt lol
There's something called "Turn it in". In a short time (a few days maybe) chatgpt answers will be duplicated and come up as cheating. It's very easy to recognise.
Sometimes but you don't use 100% chatgpt and copy and paste you switch it up to make it "look" more human even tho it's just chatgpt
It's pretty easy to recognize true though somehow one of my classmates used chatgpt to talk to a teacher and actually tricked the teacher
So it really depends how you use it if it's obvious or not
But it's not REQUIRED
I gave an example of how it's not required in shooting either. In fact they have all manner of weapon (not just rockets) that aim and hit without human input, from artillery to even rifles.
It is absolutely required in shooting.
We had a member who does competitive target shooting tell you that you are wrong on this point (the physical element of target shooting), but you persist. The shooter left this forum in disgust, as have most people looking for reasonable debate.
Human effort, yes. Math. Technology. The practice of handloading—competitive shooters only use factory ammo when they are shooting .22 caliber guns, and then they are very particular. My dad favored Wolf target rounds.
But it's not REQUIRED
I gave an example of how it's not required in shooting either. In fact they have all manner of weapon (not just rockets) that aim and hit without human input, from artillery to even rifles.
It is absolutely required in shooting.
We had a member who does competitive target shooting tell you that you are wrong on this point (the physical element of target shooting), but you persist. The shooter left this forum in disgust, as have most people looking for reasonable debate.
Human effort, yes. Math. Technology. The practice of handloading—competitive shooters only use factory ammo when they are shooting .22 caliber guns, and then they are very particular. My dad favored Wolf target rounds.
Well then I am genuinely curious how they determine the winner of a shooting competition if the person who wins is different than the person who pulls the trigger. How do they determine winners in shooting competitions?
But it's not REQUIRED
I gave an example of how it's not required in shooting either. In fact they have all manner of weapon (not just rockets) that aim and hit without human input, from artillery to even rifles.
It is absolutely required in shooting.
We had a member who does competitive target shooting tell you that you are wrong on this point (the physical element of target shooting), but you persist. The shooter left this forum in disgust, as have most people looking for reasonable debate.
Human effort, yes. Math. Technology. The practice of handloading—competitive shooters only use factory ammo when they are shooting .22 caliber guns, and then they are very particular. My dad favored Wolf target rounds.
Well then I am genuinely curious how they determine the winner of a shooting competition if the person who wins is different than the person who pulls the trigger. How do they determine winners in shooting competitions?
It’s the same person. You are missing the point (your own) that you acknowledge shooting as sport because of the physical aspect that must, in fact, be reduced as close to zero as possible for success. The more physical effort comes into play in bench rest shooting, the worse will be the result.
Target shooting with handguns, of course, differs from bench rest shooting. So does Cowboy Action shooting, which is indeed physical. Also, the Olympic biathlon is quite physical.
Just as you have acknowledged bullet chess for its physical aspect as sport, you are hypocritical when you push a claim for the physical aspects of target shooting. Your inconsistency flashes lights around itself.
AI stated: “At its core, sport involves competitive engagement that demands skill, strategy, and training. Chess embodies these elements profoundly.”
Seems I'll have to play devil's advocate since no one will argue against this.
I think this definition misses a key element, which is that for a sport, the quality of its execution depends on the physical motion of the body. In chess a blunder happens in the mind and is revealed when it's played on the board, but in sport the mind may know the correct play but the body can fail to preform it. This is an important difference.
I also think the definition fails to recognize the difference between real sport and sport-like activities. For example under that definition business is sport. Attracting a romantic partner is sport. War is sport. Certainly each has been characterized as such, but only rhetorically for the purpose of viewing it from an unfamiliar angle.
Your objection is addressed in ChatGPT’s longer discourse on the subject. Look back a page or two.
If anything kids trick certain teachers all the time with using chat gpt lol
There's something called "Turn it in". In a short time (a few days maybe) chatgpt answers will be duplicated and come up as cheating. It's very easy to recognise, due to its blandness and lack of content while pretending to be a good answer. Hasn't been programmed too well yet.
Turnitin is one word. I’ve used it. It scans the web for similar passages to detect plagiarism.
No doubt its developers are working to make it effective as an AI detector, too.
https://www.turnitin.com/products/similarity/
If anything kids trick certain teachers all the time with using chat gpt lol
There's something called "Turn it in". In a short time (a few days maybe) chatgpt answers will be duplicated and come up as cheating. It's very easy to recognise, due to its blandness and lack of content while pretending to be a good answer. Hasn't been programmed too well yet.
Turnitin is one word. I’ve used it. It scans the web for similar passages to detect plagiarism.
No doubt its developers are working to make it effective as an AI detector, too.
There are a lot of ways to tell if it's chat gpt or ai I think part of it is even though we have an insane amount of reasorces people just don't check sometimes
But it's not REQUIRED
I gave an example of how it's not required in shooting either. In fact they have all manner of weapon (not just rockets) that aim and hit without human input, from artillery to even rifles.
It is absolutely required in shooting.
We had a member who does competitive target shooting tell you that you are wrong on this point (the physical element of target shooting), but you persist. The shooter left this forum in disgust, as have most people looking for reasonable debate.
Human effort, yes. Math. Technology. The practice of handloading—competitive shooters only use factory ammo when they are shooting .22 caliber guns, and then they are very particular. My dad favored Wolf target rounds.
Well then I am genuinely curious how they determine the winner of a shooting competition if the person who wins is different than the person who pulls the trigger. How do they determine winners in shooting competitions?
It’s the same person. You are missing the point (your own) that you acknowledge shooting as sport because of the physical aspect that must, in fact, be reduced as close to zero as possible for success. The more physical effort comes into play in bench rest shooting, the worse will be the result.
Target shooting with handguns, of course, differs from bench rest shooting. So does Cowboy Action shooting, which is indeed physical. Also, the Olympic biathlon is quite physical.
Just as you have acknowledged bullet chess for its physical aspect as sport, you are hypocritical when you push a claim for the physical aspects of target shooting. Your inconsistency flashes lights around itself.
I could not infer any answer there. How do they determine winners in shooting competitions? Is it the person who makes the gun? Is it the person who sets up the targets? Is it the limo driver who drives the executive to the shooting range? Who gets the award? It's not, by any chance, the person who pulls the trigger is it?
AI stated: “At its core, sport involves competitive engagement that demands skill, strategy, and training. Chess embodies these elements profoundly.”
Seems I'll have to play devil's advocate since no one will argue against this.
I think this definition misses a key element, which is that for a sport, the quality of its execution depends on the physical motion of the body. In chess a blunder happens in the mind and is revealed when it's played on the board, but in sport the mind may know the correct play but the body can fail to preform it. This is an important difference.
I also think the definition fails to recognize the difference between real sport and sport-like activities. For example under that definition business is sport. Attracting a romantic partner is sport. War is sport. Certainly each has been characterized as such, but only rhetorically for the purpose of viewing it from an unfamiliar angle.
Your objection is addressed in ChatGPT’s longer discourse on the subject. Look back a page or two.
That it has a governing body and has rules for conduct etc... ok but so does business. So does war.
In any case, it's still possible to draw a distinction by claiming that errors in sport often happen in spite of the mind knowing the correct action. The error is a failure of the body (coordination, strength, stamina, etc). We could claim this is a sharper definition since it distinguishes between sport and sport-like activities.
The crux of the matter is the definition of sport. ChatGPT appears to have access to the Oxford English Dictionary and thus is not hampered by the abridged definition of sport that has been the focus for those arguing the negative the past 36 pages.
Such dogmatism on behalf of an abridged definition is why I ignore this thread for many weeks at a time.
All sports REQUIRE the participant
Yes, but that's not what we were talking about. We were comparing chess as played by a single person or by a computer with shooting which can also be done by a computer or otherwise without physical input from a human.
Note that such a comparison is not necessary, the purpose was to highlight the point, which is that it's not enough to show a particular incarnation of something is non-sport. You'd only have succeeded for that incarnation and not the activity as a whole.
If you want to prove something is not what others say it is, don't you only have to find one exception? For chess to be a sport you'd have to find ONE exception where a sport doesn't require the participant to actually do what the sport requires. Lets take the example of swimming. To win at swimming you'd have to actually be the one swimming. You can't sit in the stands, relay your intentions to win, and then you get the first place award. The person actually swimming gets the award, not someone else.
Chess, like many other board games, does not require the winner to actually physically participate. We've all played a game of Monopoly or Sorry or some other board game where Aunt Edna couldn't reach the other side of the board. So she says what she wants to do, and someone else moves her piece or does whatever it is she wants to do. But the mover doesn't get the credit for the win. Aunt Edna does. Sports obviously do not allow that. Which is why chess is not a sport.
But it's not REQUIRED
I gave an example of how it's not required in shooting either. In fact they have all manner of weapon (not just rockets) that aim and hit without human input, from artillery to even rifles.
It is absolutely required in shooting.
We had a member who does competitive target shooting tell you that you are wrong on this point (the physical element of target shooting), but you persist. The shooter left this forum in disgust, as have most people looking for reasonable debate.
Human effort, yes. Math. Technology. The practice of handloading—competitive shooters only use factory ammo when they are shooting .22 caliber guns, and then they are very particular. My dad favored Wolf target rounds.
Well then I am genuinely curious how they determine the winner of a shooting competition if the person who wins is different than the person who pulls the trigger. How do they determine winners in shooting competitions?
It’s the same person. You are missing the point (your own) that you acknowledge shooting as sport because of the physical aspect that must, in fact, be reduced as close to zero as possible for success. The more physical effort comes into play in bench rest shooting, the worse will be the result.
Target shooting with handguns, of course, differs from bench rest shooting. So does Cowboy Action shooting, which is indeed physical. Also, the Olympic biathlon is quite physical.
Just as you have acknowledged bullet chess for its physical aspect as sport, you are hypocritical when you push a claim for the physical aspects of target shooting. Your inconsistency flashes lights around itself.
I could not infer any answer there. How do they determine winners in shooting competitions? Is it the person who makes the gun? Is it the person who sets up the targets? Is it the limo driver who drives the executive to the shooting range? Who gets the award? It's not, by any chance, the person who pulls the trigger is it?
As he said that's not the point.
But to humor you, as a very simple example, a Musk neuralink chip could allow a person to turn a light on or off by thinking about it (in fact this can be done without an implant, but anyway). Similarly you could setup such a device that shoots a rifle when the person thinks about it.
I'm trying to think of a different way to phrase the question. I don't know of any specific shooting competitions except maybe the Olympics. In the Olympics, when they have a shooting competition, who gets the award for the result of the shooting competition. The person who pulled the trigger, or someone else?
chat gpt
It is a sad commentary on posters here when a statistics-based writing app manages to construct the most intelligent contribution to a thread with nearly 700 posts.
It's an AI and unfortunately most humans suck at english it isn't that the ai constructs the most intelligent contribution it's that it sounds way smarter than it actually is I have a feeling it's due to correct grammar and using big words
I’ve had long arguments with ChatGPT, but these two sentences are the clearest expression I’ve seen of what I’ve been arguing in these threads for nearly ten years.
“At its core, sport involves competitive engagement that demands skill, strategy, and training. Chess embodies these elements profoundly.”
Except for one thing. Chess is not a competitive physical engagement. It can demand skill, strategy and training though.
Do you think that clear expression of what a sport is meant to include things like making dinner, driving to work, arguing for a raise or mowing the lawn?
Can you ever address the words actually present in a claim without resorting to the reductio ad absurdum fallacy?
AI stated: “At its core, sport involves competitive engagement that demands skill, strategy, and training. Chess embodies these elements profoundly.”