3 ms·
If that happens, all art will simply have no value and art as % of GDP will plummet. Incidentally, this hasn't happened in areas where AI already dominates lik
by trention 4y ago
If that happens, all art will simply have no value and art as % of GDP will plummet.
Incidentally, this hasn't happened in areas where AI already dominates like chess and go. Magnus Carlsen alone probably generates more "revenue" than all chess AIs combined.
- astrange 4y agoIn general, it's not possible for machines to replace labor - this is the Luddite fallacy. If the machines do exactly what you ask them to do this becomes even more true, because labor has the comparative advantage that they'll do things you don't know to ask for. It is possible for the labor to quit and find something better to do, as happened to elevator operators, but that's a good thing. In the case of chess, AIs don't want money and Magnus does, so they're not going to help you find ways to get more of it.
- Workaccount2 4y agoIf there was a way to have an AI feed you moves without being caught, then I am positive Carlson wouldn't be at the top for long.
- trention 4y agoHe wouldn't be at the top only if he was not using said way and his competitors were. This is of course missing the point. If chess enthusiasts knew that grandmasters were using AI to aid them when playing in tournaments, the interest (and the revenues) would simply plummet.