> I want to see Michelangelo's statue of David and be awestruck at how a human being could carve the 17 foot (5 meter) tall likeness of a man out of a solid block of marble with just a hammer and chisel.

Say you learn the feat was done using some clever use of mechanical 3D tracing or casting and chemicals that rapidly dissolve the rock and took no effort at all just knowledge of the trick. Now you would no longer be awestruck? Value for you is in the difficulty not the result?

Btw: Highly recommend “Tim's Vermeer” documentary about old mechanical art technique being reverse engineered:

https://youtu.be/WPL7D0Ha1kQ

> If you believe human produced art is valuable then you should care about verifying whether or not a human actually produced it.

Do you not question whether the enormous amount of time and effort various historical works cost was well spent? What if that time and effort was instead spent researching something useful? Does the principle of compound interest not apply to useful knowledge? What happens with compound interest over long time scales? What might our lives be today if instead of placing value on paintings / carvings / etc those before us placed more value on discovery and preservation of useful knowledge?

> This was a scandal precisely because people value the human element of chess.

It was a scandal because many use costly signals (ability to play sports / games or create or acquire stuff like “art”) to rank each other in hierarchies. What matters is the ranking. If the result mattered, anything that improves the result would be welcome, not rejected as “cheating”. Are science research / publications such an activity? For some, yes. For others, no. How do you see it?

> Just like the author of the article didn't enjoy having her work credited to a chatbot, Niemann probably didn't enjoy having his work credited to a chessbot (if he's indeed innocent).

AI assisted writing when it looks like AI assisted writing is often “empty” -- it has the right look but lacks substance. If the author of the article was told her work looked like a high schooler did it that also may have upset her.

If instead the author was told it was the work of a genius and not hers that may actually be accepted as a compliment -- if she maintains that high quality in the future what else can that be but an honest compliment on the quality of her work?

>> When you are unwell do you seek medicine? What does medicine say you are? Are you not a biochemical machine?

> I'm not sure what this passage accomplishes besides a redefinition of terms.

You said above: “I'm legitimately curious about how you see the world.” The passage above reveals how I see the world. Many see a sharp difference between “human” and “machine” yet the medicine we rely on assumes we are machines. I think many know this but do not realize the implications. To think about it can be uncomfortable.

>> Today our minds exist in one form. In the future, might our minds exist in other forms? If you had the power to upgrade various parts of yourself with better parts would you reject this?

> No, I'm not a transhumanist. I believe in using technology to help people with differing abilities (e.g. I'm fine with cochlear implants), but I'm not planning on amputating my limbs to replace them with robotic prosthetics.

Your attitude I suspect is because you do not see you already are upgraded from what you would be otherwise. Your mind has been upgraded with language and is full of useful concepts and techniques that are not your own. To aid communication and memory you rely on speech and writing for information. You are surrounded by technology that upgrades you (and your life) but it is invisible to you and you do not think about it much.