pohl

pohl t1_jdqgizh wrote

It occurred to me the other day that while art is the dumbest possible thing for us to have ai pursue, it makes a certain amount of sense.

Art is subjective. When put to objective take machine learning algorithms tend to do poorly. They don’t mind lying, or rather they don’t have anyway to evaluate and value true things. A subjective task is perfect for a thing designed this way.

We don’t need AI art. It’s pointless. It just turns out that making pointless art is probably what this tech is best suited to. Ask them to do anything that can be objectively evaluated and you will be disappointed.

I could be convinced that the whole thing is a smoke and mirrors grift. The “art” seems impressive right what an expression of individuality!! But, it is actually just covering up that this entire line of research has led to systems that can’t do anything functionally useful. Since most people (myself included) are not really equipped to evaluate art. We don’t notice that it isn’t very good at art either.

3

pohl t1_ir0zen5 wrote

I guess I would challenge if the horrors of the modern world have anything to do with acquisition or, rather that a small(ish) group of people own all these companies regardless of what brand is on what balance sheet today. Even if it isn’t the same individuals, the fiduciary response of ALL public companies means they will act in very similar ways. The name on the shingle or the brand doesn’t mean a thing.

1

pohl t1_ir0wgkb wrote

I guess I don’t really care what brands are owned by which companies. A company is just a front door. Behind each door is the exact same pool of global capital. Does it matter which representation of that pool holds what? The investors in entertainment software are diversified and have a single goal: produce profits. That’s it.

When it comes to gaming platforms/services it’s either “Wall Street” owns it or Gabe Newell owns it. Trying to tease apart “Wall Street” into discrete entities is a fruitless distraction for consumers.

1