Resolves YES if AI is consistently better than me and any other human across all rules-related tasks. It does not need to be perfect, nor does it need to be better than a collective of humans who can error-correct for each other. Any type of AI system qualifies.
(This does not take speed into account; I can't even read a question in 1 second, so just because an AI can do so and guess an answer doesn't mean it's better. The humans get to take a human-reasonable amount of time to answer.)
For an easier version of this question, see /IsaacKing/will-ai-be-able-to-accurately-answe
1,000
3.00@IsaacKing you don't think they could fine tune a reasoning model on the comprehensive rules and a huge database of past rulings?
@MichaelWheatley IMO, the gap between "can they" and "will someone" is the main consideration for betting.
Domain-specific AIs are an incredibly useful hammer, but not every nail is the same priority. I think there will be a lot of other, more economically valuable, things that the tech will be applied to first.
That said, never underestimate nerds applying tech to their toys ...
@DanHomerick I think you underestimate the economic value of infinity, on-demand moderately accurate MTG rules rulings.
@MichaelWheatley I know a few people who are trying this, but no luck thus far.
Economic value of such a thing is pretty low I think. (Unless it's good enough to take over for the Arena/MTGO rules engine.) If I had one right now I would happily sell it for $50k, and it only becomes more worthless as other people's models get better.
@IsaacKing You might have a hard time capturing the value, but in principle, if you had a monopoly and thus were able to capture most of the value you were creating, you'd be making gigantic quantities of money.
@MichaelWheatley what mtg player wouldn't pay $50 for an app on their phone which could provide 95% accurate rulings on demand?
Well, many wouldn't because they're conditioned to expect apps to be free and would be outraged at a $50 price tag. But in principle it would be a totally reasonable price.
@MichaelWheatley Yes, exactly the problem. Magic players are notoriously unwilling to pay for anything. It's hard enough selling an extra $5 in their entry fee to an event to cover having a judge at all, no way they'd want to pay more than that for something that can only do rules questions. I could maybe see them paying $5 for an app if it's highly reliable, but the online judge chat is free.