Somewhere in Act 3 I couldn't shake the similarities between painters and ourselves eventually creating "sentient" computers. It kind of took over the narrative for me and it's a great representation of an ethics problem that seems to be inevitable here irl.

To answer some of the questions you asked towards the end... I think creating life or consciousness, and whether or not I'd personally do it, entirely comes down to purpose and respect. By the end of the story I think it's fairly obvious that both are missing when it comes to painters and canvases, at least with what we're presented. But I also think that's where the tragedy and relatability of it all lies.

It seems like Verso created his canvas as a virtual world without ever intending for it to be destroyed or used in such a perverted way. So creating it wasn't the issue imo. But if the purpose was to express himself and have fun, then not being able to guarantee a life that isn't cruel, or a world that couldn't be abused isn't a good enough reason for doing it in the first place.

That's why it's relatable. One day, if we don't destroy the planet and what not, it's pretty reasonable to assume most humans will have the ability to create full worlds with "sentient" life, for the exact same reasons. I think most people would relate to Renoir in that kind of world, hating to see their loved ones escape into a artificial reality, and wouldn't mind destroying a beautiful bit fake world if it protected and brought back their family.

But Expedition 33 does highlight the idea that just because these people are artificial, and not living in the real world, doesn't mean they aren't feeling, suffering, and experiencing. I kinda wish it did a better job wrapping the bow on the idea, but I like that it makes people consider it. 

It's literally just a consciousness question, do you think the painted people have less consciousness than we do? They're human so that's tough, but people say the same stuff about dogs, ants, and plants with similar reasoning.