Well, I'm personally curious. When I looked through this thread several hours ago, there seemed to be two very distinct camps: "This is really cool you should see if you can sell these", and "This is just random stuff mashed together; there's clearly no artistic intent". The first group, it seems, sees no "artistic intent" in real cubist art, and so sees no difference; the second claims to be able to see real "artistic intent" in real art, and to note its absence here.

I have to admit I'm rather in the first camp. I have spent time in art galleries, but not a huge amount; I have opinions about art, but 90% of what I hear said about paintings seems to me to be nonsense.

I know a lot about music; and so far I've always been able to distinguish 100% of computer-generated musical snippets from genuine classical snippets. And specifically, the key difference is exactly what is claimed by the second group -- that computer-generated melodies are just piles of similar musical ideas mashed together, without any apparent intent or direction.

One of the claims of skeptics of art is that there really is nothing there, and that all the "art critics" are just doing a wetware version of GPT-2. If someone trained in art can really distinguish a cubist painting with artistic intent from one generated with this neural net, then it's 1) proof that there really is something there, and 2) it's maybe worth learning about.