> This argument would suggest that anything which can be represented digitally is therefore of minimal value. Uh, not really like that. The original was about

> This argument would suggest that anything which can be represented digitally is therefore of minimal value. Uh, not really like that. The original was about value in comparison, not an absolute value. I don't really see what's immediately wrong with an idea that anything digital has questionable value compared to its clones generated by a trained neural network (but absolute value of those could be still very high). It could be wrong - but it's not immediately obvious to me.