This study raises the question, why do we play games? Do we play to win or to enjoy ourselves. Why design a machine to do what we should be enjoying? This goes for writing, creating Art, coding. Wanting a machine to win is the desire to achieve a goal without doing the work to earn it. Same for making art or writing novels. The point of these things (growth and achievement) is lost when done by a machine. I want to see this done with investment, legal strategy or business management. These are better suited to LLMs than what we're making them do, but I'd venture that those who are profiting from LLMs right now would profit less if replaced by LLMs by their boards.

I imagine that pitting LLMs against computer games is itself an enjoyable activity.

Generally speaking, people play games for fun, and I suspect that will continue. Even if an LLM can beat all humans at computer games, it doesn't matter. We will continue to enjoy playing them. Computers, pre-LLM, could already out-play humans in many cases.

Other activities mentioned -- writing, art, coding, etc. -- can indeed be fun, but they are also activities that people have been paid to do. It seems that there is incentive to create LLMs that can do an at least adequate job of these tasks for less money than humans are paid, so that that money is rerouted to LLM companies instead of human workers. I imagine humans will continue to write, create art, and even code, without any financial incentive, though probably less.

(I personally remain unpersuaded that LLMs will do away with paid creative work altogether, but there's clearly a lot of interest in trying to maximize what LLMs can do.)