[padolsey]

> It wont understand what it is to be human and mortal,

But it won't need to. All it will need to do is manifest the same end-product via whatever means, no matter how vacuous or computational that means may truly be. The suffering of an artist is relevant only inasmuch as it is responsible for producing the art. If the same end-product can be manifested via a mere computation then our criteria of "art" is still satisfied. In a world in which provenance cannot be established, the ostensible mortality of the artist becomes moot.

[eropple]

> In a world in which provenance cannot be established, the ostensible mortality of the artist becomes moot.

This is a real hot take to be asserting as blithe fact.

[padolsey]

> This is a real hot take to be asserting as blithe fact.

Without knowing what is truly born of human hands, what value can art have? Our heuristics of establishing 'real' art are easy to manipulate. If we are presented with a soul-breaking poem and weep uncontrollably then its merit is regardless of its mortal provenance.

[ianmcgowan]

I agree with your point, but especially love the poetic way in which it is made. Very meta...