Interesting. Your comment gets at the question of what constitutes art. I think there are many forms and purposes of art, but the kind we most often consider

Interesting. Your comment gets at the question of what constitutes art. I think there are many forms and purposes of art, but the kind we most often consider authentic usually seems in many ways crude compared to what preceded it: - Jazz began as something that sounded cacophonous compared to the more obvious order of hymns and classical music. Jazz transformed what had been brief moments of dissonance and arrhythmia into elaborate intereleavings of tension and resolution, structure and chaos. - Rap began by taking the repetition and rhyme of poetry and the rhythms of african music and created something many would not classify as music when they first heard it. - In order to be deemed fresh and worthy of recognition, fiction must not feel like a rehash of the great classics. In most cases the best new fiction smashes conventions in at least one narrow way. I'd argue that an unattributed work from a great author would not likely be publishable today because of that. Quality is not just subjective, it is relative. - In fashion, the moment a style is obvious it becomes outdated and means something quite different. In some cases the latter can be marketed successfully, but it is hard to think of it as art by that point. Think of the way iconic things felt when they were new (and ugly to most people at that moment) and someone was making them iconic. So while these algorithms create believable surface features mimicing established instances of "art" (they might persuade me that a short story was written by Fitzgerald when in fact it had been written by a grad student and run through the algorithm) they won't necessarily make it a good short story. But in another year researchers will likely understand what makes humans consider things stylistically novel and then all the above points will be irrelevant.