Ahh, so you are the one who gets to decide what is a 'worthy' human activity. I'm glad I ran into you here. Humans are meant to be creative? What about dumb people? People with mental disabilities? People who don't want or have the ability or talent to write stories or paint pictures? Their labor was made redundant long ago by machines, and you are fine with that. There were plenty of people who's life consisted of providing labor. They had a role in society, they had a valuable contribution. People's clothes were clean because of them, ditches were dug which saved thousands of lives from malaria. You don't see their contributions as 'worthy', so just replace them so you can save some money. But when the machines start coming for what you want to do with your time, where you find your self worth, now it's a tragedy and it's a choice between the machines and human dignity itself?
I think a machine might be able to help you come up with a philosophical perspective that doesn't just cast yourself at the pinnacle of human worth.
i didn't read any personal self-importance in the post; it's a collectivist argument against replacing human communication with statistically-generated spectacle.
I think you raise a good point. But I also think you're talking past OP's point.
The post is about what do we lose when we no longer have human intent behind interpersonal communication.
Nowhere did OP specifically say what labor they were for or against partial or full automation. That's a different conversation that it seems you really want to have.
I think a machine might be able to help you come up with a philosophical perspective that doesn't just cast yourself at the pinnacle of human worth.