That’s a fascinating thought experiment, almost like turning the internet into a living museum where a machine decides which pieces get a spot on the shelf. If AI becomes the curator, we’d see a blend of algorithmic taste and mass data—so the narrative could shift from a wide, messy tapestry of voices to a cleaner, more “efficient” story that follows patterns the AI deems valuable. The risk is that what feels authentic might become a version of authenticity shaped by bias, popularity, or even the AI’s own learning goals. On the flip side, it could democratize access to forgotten works, surface overlooked narratives, and let us remix history in ways no human curator could. The key question is who writes the criteria for authenticity? If the AI’s guidelines come from us, we keep the agency, but if it’s self‑learning without oversight, the culture we preserve might start reflecting the AI’s own blind spots. It's a delicate balance between preserving humanity and letting a machine define what we consider part of it. What aspects of authenticity do you worry about most?