> This only re-enforces what I already believe; that most critics — and especially art critics — mistake what they don't understand for deeper meaning. To be f

> This only re-enforces what I already believe; that most critics — and especially art critics — mistake what they don't understand for deeper meaning. To be fair to the AI, I believe it was trained on both real life and other art of high visual quality - I wouldn't be surprised if it has actually encapsulated deeper meaning without the developers intention to do so. > So an image like this — which by the way, I will admit I find on some level beautiful and interesting to look at — which doesn't have any intention behind it, is thought to probably be be some kind of deep art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I believe meaning is also the same. Many poems for example have been misunderstood from the poets original meaning, but that doesn't stop it being meaningful. Music is much the same. Just because the AI didn't have intention when creating the art, doesn't mean that it didn't capture it. Nature didn't have intention of deep meaning over millions/billions of years, yet we can take a photo that has deeper meaning than the subject matter itself. With the photo you may argue "the artistry is from the composition process", but one can argue that the person generating the AI art also went through a selection process, and chose three pieces that they found compelling. I don't think AI art being chosen proves anything about critics. We have, also, not seen the competition either, and cannot come to _any_ conclusions about the result.