4 ms·

Would you say it doesn't make sense to appreciate art because cameras exist? Actually, with the advent of image generating AIs, such questions become more rele

• rglullis 4y ago
  Imagine a book, a ballet choreography, a movie entirely conceived and produced by an AI, which we collectively regard it as "art". Also imagine that, barring evidence of how the work was done, it is impossible for humans to distinguish if the work of art was produced by a human or an AI. Why should we, as "appreciators/consumers" of this art, care about how it was done? Do we think that a drawing made with the help with a computer "less artistic" than one drawn on paper? Also imagine that this AI is friendly and superhuman, and it is established that its works are aligned with our interests. All "art" produced by this AI inspires us to be better version of ourselves and enlighten us to help us solve our conflicts. In this scenario, why should we care about the work of one particular human vs another? The point that I am trying to make is that chess is already a reduced version of this hypothetical. Those that care about chess as a game will have little to learn by looking at humans. Those that want to improve their own game will do it by playing against/studying/interacting with the advancements in computers. There is very little left room for humans by themselves to show any new development in the game. As such, it seems to me that the ones interested in events related to human players are those who worry more about measuring humans against each other than in the game itself.