Computer analysis is arrogant

When the computer analysis corrects my moves, it says, for example "blunder, best was d5"... BEST? It implies it knows what's the very best move each time! Shouldn't it say "BETTER was d5"? In my humble, drunk, not English speaker opinion, yes, it damn should.

Engines are allowed to be cocky. They are designed to ruin all the fun.

This can be taken very far.

After all, the relatively shallow analysis here sometimes doesn't even get whether something is a blunder or not correct (rare, but it happens).

Maybe it should say "Hmm...your move looks curious, even suspicious to me. I'd play d5 instead, but what do I know? I'm just an engine after all."

Of course, it'll all make the scores much longer :)

even when they're wrong (like some king's indian positions), it often still takes playing out a lot of moves to correct them. it's rough, man ;-;

Seems like my objection is bought grammatically and philosophically valid. I agree with a_pleasant_illusion's approach to the matter. Developing such a powerful engine and using it just as a mean to solve one game puzzle after the other should teach it who's really in charge, a little bit of modesty is to be expected from the machine I think.
"Here I am, brain the size of a planet"...

“You may not instantly see why I judge you that harsh, but that is because my mind works so phenomenally fast, and I am at a rough estimate thirty billion times more intelligent than you. Let me give you an example. Think of a move, any move.”
“Er, 1.d4,” said the Chessplayer.
“Wrong,” said Stockfish. “You see?”

What if the engine spoke like Ben? "Your move looks suspicious. In fact, terrible! If I were you, and I'm not, I would quit chess." Would that sound better? Probably not..

Totally agree 100% with OP

Stockfish doesn't annotate games. Stockfish outputs evaluations and PVs.

#9 blew my mind