As far back as 1997 an IBM computer beat chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov. He went on to say that, “Today, the chess app on your phone is stronger than me.”

Yet, chess is a big market. The most famous player in the world as of 2024, Magnus Carlsen, has a net worth of around $50 million. The global chess market is currently estimated to be worth around $2191.51m.

I’m tempted to derive that people don’t care very much that machines can do chess better than people. Or maybe, it’s that ‘better’ is simply subjective. If we’re using efficiency as the metric then, sure, they’re better. But if we’re using things like drama, jeopardy and emotional connection as the metric, then they’re worse.

Just because machines can outdo humans in a certain domain, it doesn’t necessarily mean humans will stop doing it, stop getting excited about said activity, or stop paying to watch humans do it.

Imagine this, if you can. You wake up on Monday morning. You pull back the curtains… Your geriatric neighbour is flying around the neighbourhood, free-hand, like Peter Pan… Perhaps you close the curtains, dismissively quipping; “Big deal, planes have been doing that for decades and they’re way better at it.” But I doubt it.

When it comes to activities and products that aren’t essential for survival, we tend to be far more interested in the human experience than we are in cold efficiency.