[hammyhavoc]

It's not so much a rejection of concept, I just find that it does nothing for me emotionally or intellectually.

I had a scroll through the Twitter profile, and whilst at least unusual in terms of content, I close the app and remember none of it. None of it is bold enough to be memorable compositionally for me. It's competent, sure, it's just unremarkable and lacks humanity. Does that mean it's "bad"? It's just not for me, in the same way I don't care for tuna even though I acknowledge that plenty of people enjoy eating tuna.

[Kim_Bruning]

Until the artist confessed, the 'photo' had won a photography prize.

So it has gotten to the point where contest judges think AI can (be used as a tool to) make good pictures.

[hammyhavoc]

That's giving far too much credit to judges in the first place. Consider art critics as a whole, they have been proven to be cork sniffing blowhards many times over with them believing that paintings done by elephants, monkeys and toddlers are somehow masterpieces and that the artist had fine motor control and clearly put a lot of thought and emotion into their work.

Art is subjective. If you can accept that art is subjective then quantification of the quality and value of art is absurd.

Those who can, do, those who can't—judge photo contests?

All it tells you about is the taste of the judging panel.