> First, there is the question of the mythology of the author. Would Shakespeare be himself if he had an AI ghost write his books? Would we care as much?
Idunno... Would Homer? Shakespeare is one thing; we have at least some biographical detail on him. (And even then, quite a few people seem to believe he didn't write the works attributed to him.) But "Homer - the author of the Iliad and the Odyssée" is so unknown to us that experts argue about whether he even existed, whether he was one person or several, and so on. We know him only through his (or, eh, "his") works. Now there you can talk about "the mythology of the author"; that's "mythological", indeed! :-)
For all we know, Homer — or "Homer" — could be an AI! Yeah, sure, very far-fetched and unlikely. But let's say our descendants in the 26th (or 387th) century invent time travel (or their AIs do...), and an AI goes to bronze-age (or was it early iron-age?) Greece and plants these stories, perhaps posing as a person called "Homer"[1], and they survive to this day attributed to this possibly-existing-or-possibly-fictitious person, and are the stories we know as "the Iliad" and "the Odyssée".
Would that change anything about how we percieve, or should percieve, the stories? If so, what and how? Does "an AI" differ from "person or persons unknown" in this scenario?
___
[1]: Or it's a flesh-and-blood person using the moniker that does the actual posing-as-"Homer", but he only peddles the stories an AI wrote for him in his home period; whatever.
