Earlier quoted context omitted.
Machine learning enthusiasts always treat this response as if it's a checkmate, but it's a silly stance, you are depending on either: a) the ignorance or apathy of the person answering the question; and/or b) deception if you are telling them it's created by a human, when it's not. There's less inherent value of this kind of "art" for most people if they know it's created by an algorithm in milliseconds, rather than…
I don't think it's silly at all; I couldn't determine whether this was specifically made by hand or with the aid of a computer, even when put next to a piece that was (it's the amalgamation of real arts afterall). I can't appreciate how much pain something takes if it can be achieved for less. Much like opting to use a bucket for water transport instead of pipes, it's just silly.
That's a valid point of view I think from the point of the art consumer, if you are into computer generated art. But misses part of the point of art completely; the point from the artists' perspective, at least for humans, which is about self-expression.