I know how superficially contradictory this may seem, but I disagree at an emotional level, however, I rationally see where you're coming from, and perhaps even

I know how superficially contradictory this may seem, but I disagree at an emotional level, however, I rationally see where you're coming from, and perhaps even agree to an extent. For me, the 'process' of creation of a game, or piece of art, is interesting in and of itself. Whether a song was created for profit only, or inspired by the loss of someone close, is interesting on its own but it does not enrich the work, if that makes sense. The work in itself produces feelings, and those feelings would be there regardless of origin. In fact, I've found myself deeply moved by music, ascribing to it meaning and intent, that turns out is completely different from that intended by the author. That is what I mean when I say I emotionally disagree with you. If a work of art can produce feelings in us that the author never felt nor intended, can we say that the author matters in any special way? After all, we're post-Death of the Author. However, for the rational part of me, the source matters. If for no other reason than philosophically: Why does art inspire feelings in us, even those unintended by the artist? Is it empathy? Even if misguided? If so, we could say art is devalued by a non-feeling creator: after all, what's there to empathise with? Or is it the recognition of something within ourselves? A (guided) self-introspection, if you will? Then the source doesn't inherently devalue the product; unless you're somehow opposed to introspecting based on the output of a machine. I feel as if some of us have been so worried about sentient/super-intelligent AI outperforming us creatively, we haven't worried enough about what it would mean if non-sentient/'intelligent' AI outperformed us at our own creative process. Or even reached parity - that on its own would be monumental.