eikons

eikons t1_j0lazje wrote

> You think you are going to have a hobby and get to do your own things in this scenario? Really? Nobody would care! You can learn to paint, sing or write music. But it’s not going to be recognized or even seen in the world where every second AI generates million more pieces.

"You won't have a hobby because AI does your hobby better than you" is such a preposterous premise that I'm amazed you posted this thing without catching yourself. We're already there in so many fields and reality is proving you wrong time and time again.

Cameras do realism better and a million times faster than the best realism painter. Yet there are realism painters.

A good set of headphones or speakers provide you with the best version of the best songs you like. You can watch movies at home with brilliant sound and effects. Yet people watch live performances.

Guns made archery obsolete. Yet archery lives. Heck, almost every sport is an emulation of something we no longer (need to) do. Still people watch the olympics where we throw spears and discs and run and jump and swim. And people do all these things at every level of competition, even knowing they will never make money off it. So who the fuck cares of a boston dynamics robot will eventually outrun the best marathon runner? It would do NOTHING to the sport.

Look at the state of Chess and Go. These games can be played at unattainable levels by AI, yet the sports are as healthy as they've ever been. Even with the recent incident.

Hobbies, almost by definition, aren't practiced to compete with commercial output. They are first and foremost something to entertain yourself. With some hobbies, impressing others is a big part of that. When I watch someone perform, whatever skill it is that I'm appreciating, I'm enjoying the experience of watching a person do that, knowing what time and talent it took for them to get there.

I could keep listing examples but if you think about it, nearly EVERY HOBBY WE DO TODAY is an example that proves you wrong.

293