[JohnFen]

> I thought the whole point of stories was that they were entertaining or had some pertinent message.

I guess it depends on what you as a reader value. The thing that makes any art valuable to me is that it is a human communication. Art made by a machine is far less valuable because, by definition, it isn't a human communication.

Others can value art differently, and they aren't wrong for doing so. That's part of what makes art special, that different people value aspects of it differently.

> Would you reject a math proof if it was generated by an AI?

That's an entirely different thing. A math proof isn't art, nor is it intended to be.

[bko]

> The thing that makes any art valuable to me is that it is a human communication. Art made by a machine is far less valuable because, by definition, it isn't a human communication.

What is "human communication"? To me that is something that communicates a concept that resonates to a human. It doesn't mean that a human had to create it. For instance, an elaborate bird nest could be art because it communicates things like beauty, symmetry, function, etc.

[JohnFen]

To me, it means communication from a human to a human. Something like an elaborate bird's nest can be beautiful, but it cannot be art.