> It was well understood that mere simulacra (in the original, pre-Baudrillard sense of the term - a representation of a person) were not to be conflated for the person they referred to themselves; the fidelity and character of classical, pre-digital media were sufficiently distinct from "real world" perceptual cues to make this clear.

This is the big concept being questioned today. Why is the "in person" version of a human the canonical "real" version, whilst that person over a telephone, or a Skype screen, or a ChatGPT imitation a "fake" version? Also, for our picture of reality, why is hearing about the world through the rumors of your fellow villagers a more realistic version of the world that one filtered through social media?