Back to top fren.>>166685>The value of art has always been and always will be subjective to the consumers and the surrounding culture. Just look at what sells for tens of thousands of dollars on the modern art market: does it all look like exceptional quality and creativity to you? I think not.
100% agreed. However, since AI is more efficient to the point it can flood the market and overwhelm Human art, it also holds an edge on the subjective.>This could be a thing, but those who make livings off of the modern art economy aren't necessarily great artists themselves, nor are great artists necessarily rewarded by the existing economy surrounding art.
Agreed, and it is alright to rejoice on their dread.>Chess masters no longer discover and formulate their games out of their own creativity.>Untrue.
Today’s chess masters learn from chess engines, that is a fact.>trying their hardest to memorise shit they can barely grasp.>Has always been a thing.
To a lesser extent once theory had expanded enough? Yes. However, just as your previous example here:<“Just look at what sells for tens of thousands of dollars on the modern art market: does it all look like exceptional quality and creativity to you? I think not.”
The fact that it was bad before, does not negate the impact of AI-generated art. Or chess engines in this case. This is why Bobby Fischer said computers were partially
to blame for the dead of chess. With the rest of the blame being attributed to theory.
I mean, come on. The similarities, even down to the partial blame, are simply staggering.>The mystery is dead.>It wasn't really a mystery to begin with. It's a sport.
Chess Masters used to figure this sport out. Today, they simply study chess engines, leagues ahead of them. You should go deeper than this. You can start by watching some of Bobby’s interviews.>The game is and will forever be driven by machines now.>Not true. You can still play chess without machines. It'll look in the background of highly publicized championships, but that's not the whole world of chess.>What's the other concern?
It’s just not the same, Anon. Creativity is no longer king when everything you can come up with, will be beaten by the guy who memorized the chess engine's game. There's a reason why Chess Masters prefer this approach. It's simply not competitive to rely on your own creativity, over learning and vomiting stuff from the chess engine. Fischer was right, only casual players can escape what has become of it. This is why he wound up hating it, by his own words.
I mean, even Fischer Random is being slowly eroded. How exactly do you make a “Fischer Random” with art anyways?>art contests>Art contests are not the world of art.
Only reason why contests are mentioned, is because they are the only sure format that Human art can prevail. You can expect scandals such as Niemann’s in no time.>Inb4: U can’t stuff the technology back into a box.
Two words: nuclear energy
No, you are not redpilling AI’s, Nigel. The same way they kicked you out of every social media platform, the same way you’ll be gatekept from the technology. And if you analyze this post. You will know the problems I associated to AI will not go away if you pressed a magical button to instantly wipe out every kike, and every nigger, fag, tranny and shitskin on this planet.
It makes sense to try and use it for the time being tho. It can only be restrained once /ourguys/ are on top.