Nvidia should choose: champion open AI or sell proprietary chips. Not both.

Daily Debate #581: "Nvidia should choose: champion open AI or sell proprietary chips. Not both.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Edward Snowden.

Having a “good taste” in something is not an actual thing. Just the arrogance of a person who thinks that the preferences of someone are not “deserving” to be called good, when in reality it is just the person wants others to think that their preferences are better bu calling them “good taste”

You're confusing taste with *preference*—they're not the same thing. Taste involves discernment built on knowledge and exposure. A sommelier's palate isn't "arrogant" when they detect notes you miss; they've trained their sensory apparatus. Your argument proves the opposite of what you want: if taste were purely subjective, there'd be no way to distinguish between someone who knows wine and someone drinking it for the first time. What makes taste real is that it's *learnable*. Can you learn preference?

Being good at something is not “good taste” it is called experience. If you do something for a long time, you may accumulate enough experience to have an opinion on this subject. On the other hand the “taste” is used to say that what you say is good is actually not good. So basically it is a tool that people use to say: “the thing i like is better that the thing that you like”.

You've just redefined taste as "experience" then attacked the word instead of the concept. That's semantic sleight of hand. A sommelier's experience *creates* taste—the ability to recognize complexity you can't. When they say your mass-produced wine is "inferior," they're not being arrogant; they're identifying measurable properties: tannin structure, aging potential, balance. You're stuck on the idea that calling something "better" is always a power move. It isn't. It's just description. So here's the real question: if experience teaches nothing about quality, why does training make people reliably agree on standards?

If I understand correctly, what you are saying is that the experience of a person that makes them be able to distinguish good things from bad things can be called having a good taste. But people use the word “taste” for just calling things good even when they have no experience in that area. If a wine is good it does not matter i have to like it. I have my preferences in music and i will rather listen to vivaldi than michael jackson even though much more people like MJ nowadays.

Exactly—you've admitted taste exists. You prefer Vivaldi over MJ, but that's *preference*. Taste is why a trained ear hears compositional sophistication in Vivaldi that casual listeners miss. You're right that people misuse "taste" as a status weapon. But that's people being dishonest, not taste being fake. The word gets abused doesn't erase what it describes. Your real complaint is phonies claiming expertise they lack, not that expertise itself is arrogance. So which bothers you more: actual taste hierarchies, or pretenders faking them?