It gets tough to debate life values, because we all come from a different place, but I'll take the question as just for me. I can't answer for this other guy. His reasons are his own.
The problem with spending so much time optimizing an artificial mathematical model (game) is that less work and time is required to create the model than to optimize it. Therefore (to me), it's the losers than spend time working on other people's problems that never move up to the next level: being creative. It's just a mechanical process. (and yes, I'm aware that some creativity is involved in the optimization)
My value system is in creating something for other people. So creativity and value to others, are the metric I use when allocating my time. I guess if such a electronic work could benefit people -- by making them happy for a bit or providing them with information they needed or something, it would be worthwhile. I mean heck, under my value system you can stretch a lot of things to make them work. The question (for me) is whether or not those 3 years could have been better spent.
Yes, at the end it's all gone anyway. That doesn't mean piss away your life. If anything, it means you only have a certain amount of time to do things you find valuable.
Mathematicians mostly study the surprising consequences of what others create; and it's often easier to take action than know the consequences, as the latter requires perfect understanding. Poorly understood automation is the Frankenstein fear, a real danger, as each victim of Murphy's Law will rue.
It's the pure science vs. engineering chestnut, that old favourite of science fiction: the pursuit of understanding for its own sake vs. making something useful (the trope has abstract knowledge as crucial in the end). But in reality, one isn't better than the other, both are needed, and it is, as you say, a matter of personal value.
> The problem with spending so much time optimizing an artificial mathematical model (game) is that less work and time is required to create the model than to optimize it. Therefore (to me), it's the losers than spend time working on other people's problems that never move up to the next level: being creative. It's just a mechanical process. (and yes, I'm aware that some creativity is involved in the optimization)
I can see where you are coming from. But I do not entirely share your view. E.g. inventing the game of Go is much simpler than mastering it. But I would not call go players losers.
> My value system is in creating something for other people. So creativity and value to others, are the metric I use when allocating my time.
Why make an exception? Just use: "My value system is in creating something for people." You are worthwhile, too.
I've toyed with reverse Solipsism for some time now. Must be too much philosophy.
What did Steve Martin say once? He didn't have a lot of philosophy in college, just enough to screw him up for the rest of his life. :)
I don't seek validation in others -- but I do seek validation in my own assurance that I am creating something that will prove of value to others. By that metric, I question if I would be able to be so certain about that if I had spent those 3 years doing what he did.
Game-playing, drinking, singing, hiking, flying, etc are all wonderful activities -- but they are wonderful because they help me optimize the other things I am doing. When I start focusing on the pleasure they give me in themselves, I lose track of the larger goal. Perhaps even forgetting I have a larger goal. Not a good thing.
Lucy: I'm intrigued by this view you have on the purpose of life, Charlie Brown. You say we're put on this earth to make others happy? ... What are the others put here for?
You can share your digital artefacts with people all over the world. Isn't that much better by your metric than a model railroad?