Comment by glenstein

>By many people’s criteria it automatically is worse, because part of what they value in art is thinking about the artist and their intentions behind their creation.

I think that's true enough for what it is but, as the other commenter also noted, a bit of a different topic here. The Monet example shows that people work backward from AI to direct conclusions about the quality of the work itself, which isn't the same as agreeing a work is by all appearances equivalent to Monet but lacking in underlying deliberation.

One can inform the other to be sure but that conversation exists in parallel with another conversation that's a straight one-shot assessment of quality.