Couldn't agree more, the insight that our own 'killer taste' is precisely what fuels initial disappointment in our creative endeavors is profoundly accurate. This concept, particularly the emphasis on generating a 'volume of work' to bridge that skill gap, is highly applicable to iterative development cycles in computer science and the continuos learning process required for mastery in any complex field, from pedagogy to AI research.
Brillian framing of taste as the new scarcity. The KVM shift is already reshaping teams where junior roles that built foundational skils are vanishing. Interesting how taste isn't just curation but knowing when to break rules, something pattern-matching AI struggles with when trainedon consensus.
while the taste take is correct for those with good taste, humanity as a whole has a track record of having bad taste, like a regression to the mean. Van Gogh's work famously wasn't appreciated much during his lifetime. today we hear GARBAGE songs played on repeat on the radio while the most high-taste music goes undiscovered and unlistened to.
untrained ordinary people have already shown to prefer AI generated paintings over human paintings, and ai generated poetry over human poetry. Is that proof that AI can generate good taste now? or is it moreso a proof of how average people have no taste?
if average people dont have taste, then how will taste be any kind of moat or advantage if theres no one capable around to value your great taste?
I thought about your points a fair amount over the weekend.
A pattern, it seems, is that exceptional art, art that might be deemed in 'good taste' is often appreciated later. Exceptional art isn't always appreciated or admired right when it is created. That's true.
Will the garbage songs we hear on the radio survive and be remembered the same way acclaimed songs from the past are today? The garbage tends to fade (although it is subjective; there are people that hate The Beatles and always will).
If ordinary people have unexceptional or unrefined taste, it only makes sense that they'd enjoy or at times prefer the outputs of AI models. Exceptional and refined taste is, by definition, not average. It also takes a fair amount of input to appreciate the good taste of others.
This is a call to action, of sorts. A push to elevate ALL of us to think more critically, and be more mindful of the inputs we're ingesting. This was always important to a degree, but with the deluge of content now, it is even more important. Much like the Flynn Effect, perhaps our baseline taste can rise by the mere recognition of what's happening.
This might be more of a new age mindset, but if enough people collectively 'tune-in' in this regard, I'm convinced a shift could occur.
Couldn't agree more, the insight that our own 'killer taste' is precisely what fuels initial disappointment in our creative endeavors is profoundly accurate. This concept, particularly the emphasis on generating a 'volume of work' to bridge that skill gap, is highly applicable to iterative development cycles in computer science and the continuos learning process required for mastery in any complex field, from pedagogy to AI research.
Brillian framing of taste as the new scarcity. The KVM shift is already reshaping teams where junior roles that built foundational skils are vanishing. Interesting how taste isn't just curation but knowing when to break rules, something pattern-matching AI struggles with when trainedon consensus.
I liked your article. a couple thoughts.
while the taste take is correct for those with good taste, humanity as a whole has a track record of having bad taste, like a regression to the mean. Van Gogh's work famously wasn't appreciated much during his lifetime. today we hear GARBAGE songs played on repeat on the radio while the most high-taste music goes undiscovered and unlistened to.
untrained ordinary people have already shown to prefer AI generated paintings over human paintings, and ai generated poetry over human poetry. Is that proof that AI can generate good taste now? or is it moreso a proof of how average people have no taste?
if average people dont have taste, then how will taste be any kind of moat or advantage if theres no one capable around to value your great taste?
I thought about your points a fair amount over the weekend.
A pattern, it seems, is that exceptional art, art that might be deemed in 'good taste' is often appreciated later. Exceptional art isn't always appreciated or admired right when it is created. That's true.
Will the garbage songs we hear on the radio survive and be remembered the same way acclaimed songs from the past are today? The garbage tends to fade (although it is subjective; there are people that hate The Beatles and always will).
If ordinary people have unexceptional or unrefined taste, it only makes sense that they'd enjoy or at times prefer the outputs of AI models. Exceptional and refined taste is, by definition, not average. It also takes a fair amount of input to appreciate the good taste of others.
This is a call to action, of sorts. A push to elevate ALL of us to think more critically, and be more mindful of the inputs we're ingesting. This was always important to a degree, but with the deluge of content now, it is even more important. Much like the Flynn Effect, perhaps our baseline taste can rise by the mere recognition of what's happening.
This might be more of a new age mindset, but if enough people collectively 'tune-in' in this regard, I'm convinced a shift could occur.