Yeah, the somelier argument.

It doesn't work for me sorry, because you wouldn't accept a book by John, a friend of Hemingway, as a Hemingway book no matter how much he assisted in editing. Nor a Picasso museum exhibition is by Marie because Marie chose which paintings to display.

Authorship and edition are different claims.

▲

em-bee 2 hours ago | parent [-]

they are, but when i read a scifi magazine like clarkesworld, i can trust that the editor made a good selection of stories. the work of the editor does have value. it's just a different value.

and how do you handle the reverse? use AI as the editor for a hemmingway book. is it still hemmingway?

	▲	torben-friis an hour ago \| parent [-]
		>the work of the editor does have value. it's just a different value. I mostly agree with that, with some caveats (in short, there's an uncomfortably thin line to appropriating the curated work, consciously or not). >and how do you handle the reverse? use AI as the editor for a hemmingway book. is it still hemmingway? I'd be comfortable saying at least that it's less misleading to declare that book as written by Hemingway. Doing so is more in line with the social expectations that come with having the author's signature on it.