Why is it that we still enjoy music despite not knowing how it was created? Why is it that we still enjoy visual art despite not knowing how it was created?
We can keep throwing counterexamples at each other forever. You can find an endless number of examples wherein the provenance of an activity or piece of work is important to the enjoyment of it, and I can find endless examples where the provenance is unnecessary. What will this prove?
I guess since we're not talking about art anymore, and are instead talking about the veracity of information, we can safely agree. If I read a news story, I do value that information higher to the extent I am convinced it is actually true information. If I read someone's autobiography, I do value that to the extent that I trust them and that it is coming from them. A piece of fiction, however, or music, or visual art, is something that can stand on its own and be appreciated or not without having to assume this context. The context and provenance can certainly color the appreciation, but it is no longer necessary.
Your entire argument hinges on being able to tell the extent to which generative AI was used in the creation of any given piece of art, which capability you will not have. You therefore fall into the category the commenter mentioned in that your perception of the value of a piece of art can be heavily influenced by someone convincing you it was AI generated, regardless of the facts.
I'd question your assumption that the software would be "great". I think we're seeing the volume of software increase faster than before. The average quality of the total volume of software will almost certainly decrease. It's not a contradiction for productivity in that respect to increase while quality decreases.
Well, yeah. I like getting computers to automate things and solve problems. Typing in boilerplate and syntax is just a means to that end, and not even remotely the most interesting part. I don't like managing my own memory garbage collection either, so I prefer to use tools that handle that for me.
I mean, I guess when I was really early in my career I'd get a kick out of writing a clever loop or whatever, and I drank deep from all the low level coding wisdom that was available, but the scope of what I care about these days has long since expanded outward.
I think instead of framing it as a continuum between easy and tough with a strict correlating reward factor, it makes more sense to frame it in terms of the types of challenges you enjoy versus the types you simply don't.
The rewards that come from challenges and difficulty are not often correlated with the amount or intensity of the difficulty, and even when they are, they are often inversely correlated. You need to take into account the type of difficulty (e.g. mastering a musical instrument vs enduring an abusive parent) and the predilections of the person trying to overcome the difficulty (e.g. many people who enjoy difficult challenges may not enjoy the challenge of living in a freezing climate). The challenges that you enjoy are what make you an interesting person, and so the simple statement that “the harder something is, the more rewarding it is” is not only completely false on its face, but it tells us nothing about you other than the possibility that you might be a masochist.
So one might say that they think that New Zealand provides the benefits with less of the challenges, but you could say back to them that the types of challenges that New Zealand lessens are for the most part the exact kind of challenges that you enjoy. An answer like that would better help people understand where you're coming from, which is good because you seem like a genuinely interesting person.
The harder something is, the more rewarding it is.
It would definitely be harder to tour Africa in an old, beat-up Honda Civic than in a jeep, and it would be even harder to tour all of Africa without a vehicle, or without supplies entirely, blindfolded, and with your hands tied behind your back.
The culture I grew up in is mainstream enough to produce a serious presidential candidate. I don't think you realize just how entrenched this kind of culture actually is in this country. Favorite past-times? Decrying the hedonistic, worldly, evil, "mainstream, celebrity worshiping, I want pleasure now" society while simultaneously taking great pleasure in it.
I have kids. Shall we skip the lame ad hominem circumstantial now and move straight on to the no-true-scotsman?
The comment you're responding to raises perfectly valid points. Sorry, but in my experience having children does not change your life into a love-fest revolving around them. You miss out on a lot of perfectly fulfilling hobbies and a lot of time. There are upsides, but it may or may not be worth it to you. I think deciding against it may be a better and happier option for many people. You can't just count on the experience of those such as you who are apparently so happy to be a parent that it makes you angry at those who suggest it might be otherwise.
You're entire rant against rationality is misplaced. "The only objective truth is that there are no objective truths." Please. You may argue that your feelings of love and devotion as a parent are irrational in nature, or even that they're somehow outside of the realm of time and space, but that is neither here nor there when talking about whether parenthood is so consistently fulfilling, irrational or not, to the point where we should recommend it for everyone.
So the logic is: you wouldn't understand because you're not a parent, but if you are a parent then you're not a good one (i.e "you haven't been able to take the same things I have from this experience").
It actually feels good to me to see you talk about the idea of society pushing you to have kids with such incredulity. You clearly haven't experienced the religious culture that I have, which pushed my wife and I to have children ASAP, and continually preaches that if you don't find parenthood (particularly motherhood) extremely fulfilling then there is something wrong with you. I assure you that this culture is still very alive and well in 2012.
We can keep throwing counterexamples at each other forever. You can find an endless number of examples wherein the provenance of an activity or piece of work is important to the enjoyment of it, and I can find endless examples where the provenance is unnecessary. What will this prove?