Today's AI has taught us that everything people show us they think is unique, isn't really. Everything comes from somewhere, including the things that add up to what we call creativity.
That's actually untrue to me as a professional artist. A.I. art has shown me that cheap permutations (which have been done in art even before A.I.) can still capture the untrained eye. I don't think that's anything particularly new.
And absolutely, however creativity is the tip of the spear which pushes beyond constraints to develop novel AND meaningful style (like Beksinski, Kopera, Kostetsky, Moebius, etc).
If they couldn't tell it was AI, yes. Winning an art competition is by itself paradoxical in undermining the point of art, so I don't know how that's relevant, but it is certainly an impressively weak point.
So how would one define "trained eye" without having to defer to your personal opinion? You don't think there is any merit to the point that people chosen by the community of artists to judge art are fooled by it?
And absolutely, however creativity is the tip of the spear which pushes beyond constraints to develop novel AND meaningful style (like Beksinski, Kopera, Kostetsky, Moebius, etc).
Nice try.