> “Labor Theory of Value” vs “Marginal Utility Theory of Value”: you are familiar with these yet you still hold that view? The output of a less efficient proces

> “Labor Theory of Value” vs “Marginal Utility Theory of Value”: you are familiar with these yet you still hold that view? The output of a less efficient process to create something comparable is more valuable _because_ a less efficient process was used? This is one of those comments that appears quite witty at first glance, but crumbles upon examination. First of all, I didn't say I value meticulously crafted art such as Michelangelo's statue of David because a _less efficient_ process was used to create it. I said I value it because of the _skill_ involved in creating it. As a human being, I naturally admire other skilled human beings. The reason why Michelangelo had to cultivate such a skill is obviously because of the state of technology during his lifetime, but that's completely beside the point. I'll take your comment in good faith and assume you truly misunderstood. Second, macroeconomic theory is best left in my opinion to goods and services that are fungible. So for example, you could use macroeconomic theory to explain the price of a commodity such as pure gold, because any pound of gold is just as valuable as any other pound of pure gold. Art is inherently non-fungible though. Not only are two similar pieces of art not equal in value, but two identical pieces of art are not identical in value (e.g. a forgery or replica isn't as valuable as the original). Even the crypto bros understand the difference between fungible and non fungible tokens. You could argue about why it is that humans value the non-tangible aspects of art, but it's a key component of our psyche. Valuing these aspects doesn't make you a Marxist, or an adherent to the Labor Theory of Value. Some of the most hardcore marginal utilitarians would find value in the original Declaration of Independence as opposed to a forgery for example. > The excellent https://youtu.be/WPL7D0Ha1kQ https://youtu.be/WPL7D0Ha1kQ documentary presents evidence that he did use tracing. In contrast to you that evidence made me more impressed with Verneer’s work. I would be more impressed by the person who supposedly invented the camera lucida almost two hundred years before any written or physical evidence of it appeared. > I answered that. No you provided an answer to the wrong question. You said in an earlier comment "If the result mattered, anything that improves the result would be welcome, not rejected as “cheating”." In this case the result being the outcome of a game of chess. What you are describing in your most recent comment is the motivation that drives people to sit at the chess board in the first place, which is a completely orthogonal topic. What I'm trying to get you to explain is how AI could possibly "innovate" once the competitors are sitting at the board. This is why I said you sound to me like someone suggesting that it would be "innovative" to allow cars in a foot race. Follow your own logic via reductio ad absurdum and see where it leads you. Forget AI, if we wanted to "innovate" in competitive games we'd allow adults to compete in children's sporting competitions, surely that would "improve the result"? I can't believe I'm explaining the concept of games to a fellow human being. Games are not primarily a science problem to be solved (or "innovated" upon) by a computer, they're a form of leisure. I've never had to ask this before, but are you a human being? Also, what about games that have been completely solved by computers such as checkers? We literally know what a perfect game of checkers looks like. If we used your method of "innovation" every game of checkers would be identical, because each participant would simply play the predetermined perfect game as calculated by a computer. When computers inevitably solve chess do you propose that we discontinue the game altogether since there's no longer any innovation left to be had? > It seems to me you like the “labor theory of value” You're vastly over-applying this principle. When you discover a new theory it's tempting to apply it to everything. The profession of economics is not in the business of deciding whether or not AI should be allowed in board games.