I know several people I respect on Hive who believe that resistance to AI 'creations' is a knee-jerk, Luddite response. I'm not naming these bloggers because I don't want to summon them from the shadows and then be obliged to answer their comments. I'll just respond with my own reaction to your blog.
Bravo.
The idea of simulation, or human emulation, is not new. It has been explored in myth, in literature, and art for centuries.
An essay by a Stanford scholar explores the use of artificial intelligence (as mythic creatures) in ancient sources. In each case, when the AI (artificial human/intelligence) is sent to earth the outcome is disastrous.
In the 19th century, ETA Hoffmann (among others) explored the essence of automata in his stories. Always there is a sinister element to this simulation of human life.
Why do some of us not see the product of AI as creativity but as simulation? What is the essence of creativity? Is a mirror of the 'real' thing the same as the original?
Why do we value an original Picasso and not its perfect 'copy'? Why is manufactured glassware valued less than handblown glassware?
What is the difference between a hand-crafted quilt and a manufactured quilt? The former might have more 'imperfections', but isn't that exactly why we value it more?
It is the essence of being human that comes through in art. Imitation just doesn't cut it. Simulation doesn't cut it. Michelangelo's Creation of Adam expresses exquisitely the notion of a divine transmission of light, of genius, of humanity. This is what we treasure in art--whatever form that art takes.