Someone posted an AI picture on Twitter, that was done in the style of a great classic painter of renown. Everyone tore it apart, discussing all the details that betrayed it as a pale imitation of the original. It was roundly panned as an example of how AI will never be good enough to replace humans. After this went on for some time, the initial poster revealed it wasn't actually AI at all, it was a genuine original from the artist in question.
replyPeople just hate AI and will find a post hoc justification for their hatred in every situation. The link you gave could have just as easily been someone expressing surprise and delight at the artists choice to not follow traditional physics... but instead be playful in unconstrained ways. Shrug.
Most people in general, and for sure the majority of current twitter users have no clue what they're talking about when it comes to modernist art and its direct predecessors.
replyArtists aren't machines that churn out one masterpiece after another, they do create bad works (most artists would acknowledge that) and there are one hit wonders. I look at a lot of art and sometimes I like only one painting out of a series, or even out of a lifetime of work. Also, you often need the context of the artist's broader work to judge the quality of a single piece, which might otherwise appear like a bad picture in vacuum.
replythat kind of experiment was done multiple times, someone put a very famous photo from a very famous photographer on some photography critique forum and it was torn apart: badly framed, blurry, no composition, ....
replythe vast majority of people have no idea what they are doing, going on vibes and copying the opinions of their peers