[saaaaaam]

“One person even took the time to write out an 850-word breakdown of the AI work’s shortcomings.”

But they didn’t. The “breakdown” they link to is clearly and glaringly AI-authored.

“ Fair warning before I dig in: this image is actually a very competent rendition. It's doing more right than most AI Monet pastiches. But you asked what makes it inferior to a real Monet, so here's the honest breakdown. What's missing — the physical object”

Plus the whole piece is just “someone did something and now here are a bunch of tweets”.

What an utterly pointless piece of churnalism.

[gitaarik]

Yeah the 850 worded one is certainly AI, but I don't think it disproves the whole article. It's not an official study either, but things in between are allowed to be written about too.