Chess as a prediction model of the artificial intelligence impact on culture

Both human performance and the enthusiasm surrounding human tournaments increased after the advent of such systems. In my opinion, these points are incorrectly cited as a basis for claims that affect broader fields.Different products generate interest because of their creators or their content. This distinction is important.Human chess tournaments are watched far more than machine tournaments, even though machines play better. Are human arts threatened by artificial intelligence? One might think that if the spectator prefers human play to that of machines, then they will prefer human books even if those written by machines are better. But chess and the arts differ in some important aspects. Most spectators do not understand the chess games they watch. The game is the stage on which the story that interests them unfolds: the confrontation between two players. It's the actors in the confrontation who interest them, not the medium.For a film or a book, it's different: the story is the medium. Readers and moviegoers aren't as interested in the author as they are in the content of the work they consume. It's not for nothing that fictional characters are more famous than their authors, and that actors are often better known than directors.However, this needs to be qualified: People have a very strong negative bias against artificial authors. But their inability to differentiate them from human authors leaves me skeptical about the future of human art as a viable commercial practice if no action is taken.Chess A.I. is misalignedProfessionals consult them to prepare their openings before playing in a tournament, and casual players have access to them at the end of each game to review their mistakes and missed moves. AI integration is very advanced in chess. One can imagine that in the fut