I guess since we're not talking about art anymore, and are instead talking about the veracity of information, we can safely agree. If I read a news story, I do value that information higher to the extent I am convinced it is actually true information. If I read someone's autobiography, I do value that to the extent that I trust them and that it is coming from them. A piece of fiction, however, or music, or visual art, is something that can stand on its own and be appreciated or not without having to assume this context. The context and provenance can certainly color the appreciation, but it is no longer necessary.

▲

prmph 3 hours ago | parent [-]

But I am not just taking about factual information. You still don't get it. I was just using that example to show if you take out key components of what makes something what is it, it is no longer the same thing.

I am saying the an intrinsic component of art is the human context of it. You can call AI generated "art" by another name if you want, and enjoy it for what it is, but the reasons why you might enjoy it are different from the reasons you might enjoy human art.

Why do we still enjoy art in spite of the fact that we have photography? Or foot races even though we have cars?

	▲	sofal 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Why is it that we still enjoy music despite not knowing how it was created? Why is it that we still enjoy visual art despite not knowing how it was created? We can keep throwing counterexamples at each other forever. You can find an endless number of examples wherein the provenance of an activity or piece of work is important to the enjoyment of it, and I can find endless examples where the provenance is unnecessary. What will this prove?