[nineteen999]

Machine learning enthusiasts always treat this response as if it's a checkmate, but it's a silly stance, you are depending on either:

a) the ignorance or apathy of the person answering the question; and/or

b) deception if you are telling them it's created by a human, when it's not.

There's less inherent value of this kind of "art" for most people if they know it's created by an algorithm in milliseconds, rather than by a human artist who spent hours working on it. Maybe there is an audience who would pay good money for it, who knows. But I think most human beings would devalue it if you were honest about its source.

[satanspastaroll]

I don't think it's silly at all; I couldn't determine whether this was specifically made by hand or with the aid of a computer, even when put next to a piece that was (it's the amalgamation of real arts afterall).

I can't appreciate how much pain something takes if it can be achieved for less. Much like opting to use a bucket for water transport instead of pipes, it's just silly.

[nineteen999]

> I can't appreciate how much pain something takes if it can be achieved for less. Much like opting to use a bucket for water transport instead of pipes, it's just silly.

That's a valid point of view I think from the point of the art consumer, if you are into computer generated art. But misses part of the point of art completely; the point from the artists' perspective, at least for humans, which is about self-expression.