Comment by customguy

> Assuming the creator will never be known, it's functionally no different from art that has no creator.

No. The assumption, since the dawn of time, was that there had to be one, even if unknown to us. That is why we now read intent and intelligence into things produced without either, that's millions of years of evolution. It was impossible for sentences to be generated without a mind behind them, so now we are hardwired to assume there is one there, too. But since we also built these things we know for a fact there is not, and we will re-wire.

This is also why we thought there might be a face on Mars for a while. And if we didn't throw out our understanding of art being an expression of a self, what would "AI" change here? The face on Mars and other things already happened. This is like a fly thinking it will have the impact an elephant didn't have.

We know people can create counterfeit slop, and from all these discussion I also get the feeling some will try to "fool" people just to prove a point in their own minds. But it proves fuck all, just like spiking drinks and raping people doesn't "objectively prove" that person is desirable to anyone conscious. A cuckoo laying an egg into the nest of a different bird doesn't prove they're the same bird.

We already have an unspoken social contract that thou shalt not make a machine to impersonate a person. Some people who aren't very social want to unilaterally change that, so they fuck around and then are exasperated when they find out.