Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
maurelian
@maurelian.eth
Prior to AI superceding humans at chess, I had somehow thought that people would just stop playing chess once it had happened. In hindsight thats craziness; just because someone or something else is better at you than a thing doesn't make it unenjoyable. But what surprised me is that AFAICT people are still more interested in humans playing chess, than they are in AI chess games (I see Magnus Carlsen clips on social media, I don't see AI games replayed). I don't entirely know what the take away is here. Maybe that it's only partly about the chess, but also largely about the people and the stories and their struggles. Feel important though.
8 replies
5 recasts
34 reactions
shazow
@shazow.eth
I think this is very close to the distinction between the value of art NFTs vs JPEGs. When was the last time a crowd watched random anon online matches? On the other hand, there's tons of extremely popular chess streamers. It's all about who it is. Similarly, the value of the NFT is the attestation of the relationship with the creator, not the pixels of the JPEG that it's topic'd around. The value of playing games comes down to the social interaction or personal improvement. It doesn't matter that a JPEG can be right-click-saved or that a computer can always beat you.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
maurelian
@maurelian.eth
Yeah, agree. Provenance and story matter hugely at least when it comes to entertainment, art and luxury goods
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
