MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

7:55 UTC
ISC 2024
 
  Forum*
 
 
 
 

Username:

Password:

Remember me

 
Forgot your
password?
Click here!
SIGN IN
to create your account if you don't already have one.
CHESS
SOLVING

Tournaments
Rating lists
1-Jan-2024

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum General "We’re watching the death of artistry unfold right before our eyes "
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
(21) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2022 02:52]

@Neal,

With all sincerity and respect: I hope you enjoyed the process of pitching that hogwash.

If composing artistic chess problems was only done to enjoy the process, nobody would waste time checking for anticipations, publishing the product, judging the product, awarding titles based upon the accumulation of valued products, or suggesting improvements which may elevate the value of the final product.
We'd just churn out rubbish.
The FIDE Albums would contain a collection of methods known to maximize enjoyment in the process of producing rubbish.

Prizes (at least in theory) are awarded to works demonstrating artistic value.
Titles (at least in theory) are awarded to individuals who have demonstrated an enduring, passionate devotion to discover valued works.
Clearly, it is the works of art we value most.

You may tell yourself you are motivated by the enjoyment of the process, but it's hogwash.
It's easy to say we enjoy the chase when looking back at a successful apprehension.
Anyone who looks back fondly on the process of their unsuccessful attempts, I dare say, will never realize their full potential (participation awards only sap our motivation to succeed).
There exists no chase for the sake of the chase. Where a chase exists, it is always driven by apprehension as the supreme goal.

A chess player may enjoy the process of playing a game. They may even consider it fun to capture an opponent's pawns. But, that misses entirely the point of chess.
There is one goal that matters (capture the opponent's King), and that drives the struggle.
For chess problem composers, artistic product is the King which must be captured.

Masters achieve success because they know three things:
1) to be ambitious (they actively seek a level of challenge that is slightly less than entirely beyond their capacity),
2) to anticipate a struggle (not a fun process), and
3) to value the achievement above all else (only a system which values the achievement will motivate them to produce something of enduring value).

The experienced artist will produce more rubbish than amateurs; the difference is, experience makes us far less inclined to publish the rubbish.
Experience teaches artists when to ask better of themselves, teaches editors when to ask better of contributors, and teaches judges when to chastise an artist for missing opportunities.

We don't cherish process (nor quantity), we value only the artistic beauty discovered in the product.

Christian Poisson developed an algorithm which has found every sound directmate for a specific group of units (in the endgame tableblase).
He published all of those problems (crediting the algorithm).
Are you really prepared to argue there is fun yet to be had in trying to find directmates with this material, knowing in advance your every product will either be anticipated, or bettered by his algorithm?

Let's be clear: at some point, without need of an exhaustive search, AI will ultimately achieve that same result (they will render humans obsolete in this field).
You'll have nothing left but to enjoy trivial construction exercises (provided to you by AI).
Construction exercises can be fun, and they can be beneficial, but they are hardly the point.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23740
(22) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2022 04:19]

And, if you doubt that, I'll run it by you another way.

In the span of mere seconds, a computer can produce moves that a top Grandmaster might need days to discover/appreciate.
The same will happen in chess composition contests, except the AI will be stronger, and will run for much more than mere seconds.

The AI is not going to exhaust every possible problem. You'll still find sound problems the AI didn't publish (effectively, you'll be publishing what AI considered rubbish).

After you discover a good problem, you will feed it to an AI.
The AI will be capable of interpreting the thematic (artistic) content of your composition.
Then, the AI will seek to discover a better realization with similar thematic content.
In a few hours, the AI is likely to produce a far superior problem (something no human is likely to have discovered/appreciated, in years of searching).

You might hope to achieve success by discovering novel themes (themes not yet recognized/appreciated by the AI), but even if you discover value in some novel thematic idea, you have yet to express this in a problem.
The best way to go about this realization will be to describe the theme to the AI (program it).
Eventually, you'll want to develop an AI which can discover novel thematic ideas -- and, just as a chess engine finds amazing moves, AI will find thematic ideas no human could hope to imagine, and AI will express them in ways no human could hope to discover.

At some point, AI will be much better than humans at appreciating beauty, and judging problems.
The totality of their capacity to obsolete humanity is, well, it's beyond our capacity to imagine.
If everything we do is relative rubbish, what will motivate us to do anything?

AI will provide you exercises (trivial by their standards) to improve at construction, to improve at identifying new themes, and even to improve at judging problems.
It will be impossible to maintain traditional composing tournaments (even if you insist upon a human category, enforcement against cheating will prove impossible).
That leaves us what -- rapid OTB composing tourneys? Rubbish!

And, just to drive the final nail in the "fun process" coffin...
If a fun process is all that matters, why is it that every computer testable problem you have published was tested by computer?
if you had an AI tool which promised to improve your entire collection of published problems, would you not press that button?
Would you ever publish a new problem without consulting such a tool?
Would you ever discard a superior construction offered by an AI tool?

Face reality: automation will increasingly obsolete every endeavor of human labor, and AI will increasingly obsolete every endeavor of human artistry.

We know this will increasingly alter how we value (read: devalue) ourselves.
This will spiral toward self-destruction, and we have no plan to deal with it.
Considerable testing has been done to determine how a human might survive on Mars.
What test has ever been performed to determine how a human being might survive an increasingly obsolete existence?
What plan have we for this inevitability?

What options have we? Sabotage? Assimilation? Euthanasia on a global scale? Check ourselves into zoos for AI to enjoy? Shall we enjoy the process of thumb twiddling for an eternity?

Many sci-fi writers have considered this issue (Isaac Assimov, Frank Herbert, etc). I have yet to find one that provides a realistic remedy (unless you count the dystopian view).

I would submit depopulation is the default plan.
Elites have nothing to offer but a kinder, gentler, more diverse, more equitable, more inclusive, more global genocide (extend their own utility as long as possible, and use virtue signaling wokeness to avoid facing the horror of their own reflection -- the most tragic end imaginable).
I would further submit that the elites pushing for that plan have no idea how far it will ultimately extend -- it may culminate in the second coming of Adam and Eve (we'll let those two make a plan).

This is a sneak peek at the final exam for humanity, which will ultimately determine whether we were worthy of creation; and, we will grade ourselves.
How are we doing?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23741
(23) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2022 09:30]

@Kevin: "There exists no chase for the sake of the chase."

You haven't seen enough classic cartoons and action films. Meep Meep :P
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23744
(24) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Sep 15, 2022 07:03]

@Hauke,

Why was Wile E Coyote chasing the Roadrunner?
Chuck Jones based the films on a Mark Twain book called Roughing It, in which Twain noted that coyotes are starving and hungry and would chase a roadrunner.

I reiterate: There exists no chase for the sake of the chase. The objective was immediately obvious to the audience (despite the fact it was never explicitly stated).

Did Wile E Coyote catch the roadrunner?
The answer is YES!
He caught him in the 1980 Chuck Jones produced special, “Bugs Bunny's Bustin' Out All Over” in a segment called “Soup or Sonic”.

Seems I watched at least one more cartoon chase than you managed.

Then what happened?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ae/Soup_or_Sonic_screenshot.png

The coyote caught his prey, but never ate the roadrunner.
That's hardly an unfamiliar experience: we all have chased problem ideas that we decide, only after achieving them, were of too little value (too often we publish anyway, which only makes it worse).
I like to think Wile E Coyote found so little (nutritional) value in his apprehension, that he doesn't want to remember the point of giving chase (harkening back to the whole point Twain was making).

When a chess problem composer is starved to publish, but has not found artistic inspiration (this occurs most often with rookies), they will unwisely give chase to prey that is uncatchable or devoid of value.
I am not suggesting those unwise/impossible pursuits are, themselves, devoid of value; on the contrary, those pursuits make us wiser about selecting objectives for later pursuits and better fit to apprehend said objectives; however, I do maintain that the training value of such failed pursuits will depend entirely upon later apprehensions.

Morals of the story:
1) Every chase requires a clear objective (and every pursuant party with an interest in learning from failures should be explicitly aware of -- and never forget! -- the objective).
2) No chase exists for the sake of the chase.
3) Only AFTER achieving the objective would a cartoon predator opt to forget that the chase was not a purpose unto itself (achieve a desire, discover it's undesirable, pretend it was never desired, learn nada).
4) A character (coyote) that doesn't appreciate the (nutritional) value of its apprehension (the prey) is either maintaining fitness (why Rocky Balboa pursues a chicken) or fast pursuing starvation.
5) Therefore, don't waste your time chasing things you will not value after apprehension.
-AND (a moral the Roadrunner cartoon missed)-
6) Respect the predator who is capable of catching a nearly impossible prey (to truly appreciate the value of some apprehended prey, you must catch the delicacy for yourself).

The last two points combined can be reduced to what is perhaps the most important problem composing lesson: be more ambitious.
I wish I had learned that lesson sooner (like, maybe from the Roadrunner cartoon).
I wish I didn't need to constantly relearn it.

Ooops. I almost forgot the second most important lesson:
7) When you're most confident your prey is secured in the trap, you're most likely to fall off the cliff (consult the Acme Corporation for confirmation).

https://images.news18.com/ibnlive/uploads/2020/05/1589967773_coyote.jpg
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23751
(25) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Thursday, Sep 15, 2022 11:25]

@Kevin: But you give the Watsonian interpretation, I meant it Doylist :-)
For those who don't peruse TVTropes or Coyote cartoons:
"Watsonian" is the in-universe view: of course the Coyote chases the
roadrunner because he is hungry. Oh, and here's a non-canon speculation
what would happen if he ever should succeed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoOBSlRbbU
"Doylist" is the ex-universe view: chases are just a trope that the
watchers are familiar with, they would work even if they are completely
senseless, as "Big Man and Small Man" (not the title?; how I'd love to find that cartoon
back, Bruno Bozzetto maybe?) aptly demonstrates.
To not go completely meepmeep, it would be interesting if this distinction
could be applied to chess problems. ("The rook crossed e5 because it
wanted to get to the other side" :-)

And now I drop the theme lest an anvil drops on me.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23752
(26) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Sep 15, 2022 23:03]

@Hauke,

Maybe artistry succumbed to suicidal tendencies...

Q: Why did artistry die?
A: To get to the other side.

Unironically, the title of this thread does suggest a concern not for the death of artistry, but for the unfolding of artistry's presumed death (spare my eyes this intolerable exhumation).
Technically, it's not an exhumation until after the presumption of death is confirmed.
Admittedly, humanity's contribution to artistry will inevitably die. If this realization suggested a good plan (read: a plan that is never premature), Asimov would have likely provided it.
I would estimate denial is of greater benefit than wallowing in premature grief, if the estimation were not time-invariant.

ps: religious salesmen are a masterclass in how not to sell a product.
Pitch: Do you have 45 minutes to discuss the resurrection of Jesus?
Expected reply: Sorry, but I'm 45 minutes late for the crucifixion.

Pitch: Give me 2 minutes of your time and I can save humanity from Artificial Intelligence.
Expected reply: I'll binge it for a day, if there's good CGI. just give me 2 minutes to call in sick.

When a religious salesman writes the rest of that sales pitch, you'll know the end is near.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23758
(27) Posted by shankar ram [Monday, Oct 3, 2022 04:38]

After my opening post, numerous opinions and articles on this subject have appeared on the internet.

One of these is of interest: https://www.commonsense.news/p/there-is-no-such-thing-as-ai-art

One excerpt:
"As a writer, I face the demon of despair with every blank page, and many full ones, too, when I read what I’ve written and feel it could be better, if only I were able to make it so. A.I. knows nothing of these dramas. It compiles, sifts, and analyzes, then finally executes. But it doesn’t dare. It takes no risks. Only humans, our vulnerable species, can."

Do the composers of computer assisted chess problems face such conflicts?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23919
(28) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Oct 3, 2022 17:55]

Are we 100% certain no AI wrote that excerpt?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23922
(29) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, Oct 4, 2022 22:42]

@Kevin: Seconded. I'm a "mild" computer user (only cook-checking for my twomovers -
even my old ATARI could have done that). This rather makes my constructions
more daring and more light. And definitely not heartless.
(I wrote a little proggie for symbol problems, but nothing good came yet
from it - instinct and a few random tries give better results.)

Rereading the relevant passages of Hofstadters "Gödel Escher Bach"
should be mandatory for any participation on the discussion :-)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23928
(30) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Oct 5, 2022 04:18]

@Hauke,

Have they made that book into an action movie yet?
Looking for the audio book.

AI is my auto pilot.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23929
(31) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Oct 5, 2022 09:40]

@Kevin: M. Night Shyamalan and Christopher Nolan teamed up to try,
but after artistic differences about who to play the turtle,
they gave up. :-)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23930
(32) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Oct 5, 2022 11:23]

So, you're saying Alec Baldwin shot Catwoman?
That proves it: Artistry is dead.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=23931

No more posts
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2

MatPlus.Net Forum General "We’re watching the death of artistry unfold right before our eyes "