How good at playing chess would a chess computer have to be before it started trying to feed the hungry?
That’s up to the notion of ‘good’. If ‘good’ is defined to be ‘beats all humans alive right now’, then it might “feed” the hungry to be able to win chess matches against them.
The utility is in beating, not in non-playing, presumably. But yea, if its to beat all humans vs to beat most humans. edit: or it can set it’s ‘number of humans alive’ counter to zero directly without killing anyone.
That’s up to the notion of ‘good’. If ‘good’ is defined to be ‘beats all humans alive right now’, then it might “feed” the hungry to be able to win chess matches against them.
Or kill everyone so they don’t produce more humans it has to beat.
The utility is in beating, not in non-playing, presumably. But yea, if its to beat all humans vs to beat most humans. edit: or it can set it’s ‘number of humans alive’ counter to zero directly without killing anyone.
A human with barely enough calories to survive is going to be a significantly weaker chess opponent.