Interesting question if applied to the “degrees of separation” theory on Open Thread 10/6, especially the discussion at the end in respect to how fast behavior, either negative or positive, can spread depending on the connections of the people in the data set.

Also might explain why activism of any stripe, with its concomitant ideological rigidity, seems to lead to silos or bubbles each with its own designated perception of “reality” that might have little or no connection to any actual objective happenings.
(I’m obviously dodging the word “facts”.)

Might one wonder if, with the uptick of Optics and the unstoppable spread of AI, “reality” will, all too soon cease—gradually and then suddenly?—to have any meaning at all?

“Germany In Shock: Merz’s Media Show Vs. Economic Collapse”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/germany-shock-merzs-media-show-vs-economic-collapse

File under: “All the world’s a stage…”, etc.

In this case I would think that the distinction between the two forms is much clearer, and that the performance by a live actor or actress would be much more highly valued, would be preferred over that generated by an AI, even if the AI generated actor or actress looked exactly like their living counterparts.

The immediate impression is that the difference in perceived value is tied to the mere age of the older object. But as is evident, “age is just a number” in that strict sense – one can’t touch age or time. Hence, if this is the explanation, it can’t be merely because a thing is old that the price or demand is high. (Well, price being a first-approximation proxy for demand. But let that go.)

I think the deeper reason, even if buyers don’t necessarily articulate it, is that the age is, again, a proxy for the historical associations that go with the object. It’s as if the buyer is not interested in the object per se as much as in acquiring, as best he can, a share in that history and culture, at least the good sides thereof, which produced such an item as a tangible output or remnant. And I mention ‘remnant’ here because there is, I suspect, always an unspoken consciousness that time only runs one way and good, once gone, does not generally return (not in human affairs, anyway, and not in the same manner).

That’s the one side of it. The other, I suppose, is that for particularly knowledgeable collectors, it’s not really about the external form of the object, but often about hidden details within. Take the difference between a Japanese sword made with a certain ancient process as against one that may look and even function identically on the outside, but was merely cast in some modern foundry a few years ago. In that case, what gives the object the perceived value is the inward metallurgical detail. But that’s not something that can be seen with the naked eye, so it relies on background technical knowledge on some level. That could be an example of a buyer being motivated by a different sort of aesthetic, if aesthetic we may call it. It is, ironically, a little bit like the labor theory of value being ported into the field of art.

I suppose I would have to take a different line from either of these if I were to think about something like ancient Byzantine or Chinese manuscripts or something like that, because with those, there is text and thus comprehensible meaning that can be objectively identified and so on. That’s a different dimension of value yet again.

Very good. The scene with Schumer grilling street tacos was especially amusing.

* See https://www.thefp.com/p/im-leaving-the-uk-antisemitism-manchester

and https://x.com/AshleyRindsberg/status/1973849074349514823

Take two items which appear to be pretty much identical.

One is old, and was the result of, say, a month of dedicated and meticulous, time-consuming work involving many intricate steps, performed by one artisan or by a team of them.

The other is brand new, a copy of a hand-made original, which has been scanned by a laser, the scan uploaded to a computer, then, used as a pattern to direct various machines to create an exact duplicate–the whole process taking, say, a couple of hours.

Put these two items side by side, and compare them, they look identical, but what value might you place on th genuine, old, hand made item vs. the just created machine made copy?

Would it matter if this item was functional vs. just decorative?

Same value, different value?

I visited the Prince Gong Mansion in Beijing, and it was very lovely, but had been extensively restored in 2008. From the 60s to the 80s it was used as an air conditioning factory. It had originally been built in 1777–San Jose, California was founded in that year, and its oldest building is nearly that old, though not quite as elaborate.

The Temple of Heaven was first constructed in 1406 but is made of wood and has been rebuilt over and over, the current structure dating to the 1890s. King Street Station in Seattle is almost that old, but has a lot more bums in it.

There are Chinese manuscripts held in state universities in the US that can no longer be found in China.