Life and chess are not the same. I would argue that this is showing a fault in standardized testing. It’s like asking humans to do square roots in an era of calculators. We will still need people who know how to judge the accuracy of calculated roots, but the job of calculating a square root becomes a calculator’s job. The upending of industries is a plausibility that needs serious discussion. But human life is not a min-maxed zero-sum game like chess is. Things will change, and life will go on.
To address your specific comments:
> What are the implications for society when general thinking, reading, and writing becomes like Chess?
This is a profound and important question. I do think that by “general thinking” you mean “general reasoning”.
> What happens when ALL of our decisions can be assigned an accuracy score?
This requires a system where all human’s decisions are optimized against a unified goal (or small set of goals). I don’t think we’ll agree on those goals any time soon.
I agree with all of your points, but don't you think there will be government-wide experiments related to this in places, like say North Korea? I wonder how that will play out.
China is already experimenting with social credit. This does create a unified and measurable goal against which people can be optimized. And yes, that is terrifying.
To address your specific comments:
> What are the implications for society when general thinking, reading, and writing becomes like Chess?
This is a profound and important question. I do think that by “general thinking” you mean “general reasoning”.
> What happens when ALL of our decisions can be assigned an accuracy score?
This requires a system where all human’s decisions are optimized against a unified goal (or small set of goals). I don’t think we’ll agree on those goals any time soon.