[Wissenschafter]

Then the market will decide, won't it? Why the fuss about generative AI then? If you're so confident about its inferiority, you shouldn't have to worry about it, right? The better product will win, right?

[mftrhu]

The market does not choose the superior product. It might choose the least common denominator, the cheapest product, the product that got on the market the earliest, or the one with the richest backers, but not "the superior product".

[mlrtime]

The "superior" product is subjective.

The objectively superior product is the one that people pay for. They are exchanging labor/capital for the item/content.

I could make the best movie ever conceived, the movie to end all movies. If nobody watches it, it has 0 value.

[ParetoOptimal]

> The objectively superior product is the one that people pay for. They are exchanging labor/capital for the item/content.

No, that assumes perfect discovery of options. The product people see first is often chosen.

> I could make the best movie ever conceived, the movie to end all movies. If nobody watches it, it has 0 value.

Things only have intrinsic value if validated by others? That's just not true.

[mftrhu]

The first part is debatable, unless you qualify it as "superior at making their creator money".

The market selects for that, and only that. Other qualities of the product are secondary, making any statements to the effect of "the best product [outside the context of simply making the most money] will win" misguided at best.

[ParetoOptimal]

No, because the market isn't fair.

What will actually happen is people will think "meh good enough", shitty AI art will become the norm, and we'll be boiling frogs and not realize how shitty things have become.