[Symmetry]

After Deep Blue Garry Kapsparav proposed "Centaur Chess"[1] where teams of humans and computers would complete with each other. For about a decade a team like that was superior to either an unaided computer or an unaided AI. These days pure AI teams tend to be much stronger.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess

[ffsm8]

How would pure ai ever be "much stronger" in this scenario?

That doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever, it can only be "equally strong", making the approach non-viable because they're not providing any value... But the only way for the human in the loop to add an actual demerit, you'd have to include time taken for each move into the final score, which isn't normal in chess.

But I'm not knowledgeable on the topic, I'm just expressing my surprise and inability to contextualize this claim with my minor experience of the game

[famouswaffles]

You can be so far ahead of someone, their input (if you act on it) can only make things worse. That's it. If a human 'teams up' with chess AI today and does anything other than agree with its moves, it will just drag things down.

[Symmetry]

If you had a setup where the computer just did its thing and never waited for the human to provide input but the human still had an unused button they could press to get a chance to say something that might technically count as "centaur", but that isn't really what people mean by the term. It's the delay in waiting for human input that's the big disadvantage centaur setups have when the human isn't really providing any value these days.

[plomme]

Why? If the human has final say on which play to make I can certainly see them thinking they are proposing a better strategy when they are actually hurting their chances.

[pixl97]

With intelligence of models seeming spikey/lumpy I suspect we'll see tasks and domains fall to AI one at a time. Some will happen quickly and others may take far longer than we expect.