Evocative.
I find it interesting that we judge these AI photos by our standards. We know that the AI has no "standards" or "soul" or other descriptive to discuss why we find one picture as better, or more soulful, as another.
When directed by a person, then AI can certainly create an evocative image for us to enjoy.
Now we as humans get to understand that the Creator is greater than the created.
Given that it was computer-created, I think it was pure coincidence that it was evocative.
As an aside, sketching is one of my hobbies. I have often been surprised when a sketch turns out surprisingly better than I intended. I have always chalked it up to coincidence.
The funny thing about art is that it takes two people at least. One to create it and the other to perceive it.
The human eye fills in the blanks with what it sees. It calls on memory to fill in the blanks.
Regarding the photo which is the subject of this thread, the AI system didn't know what it was creating, but our eyes and memories and powers of emotion/thought fill in the blanks. We see things that are meaningful to us even where they don't actually exist.
Does that make sense? It is hard to communicate such a point.
that’s not how i came to my decision. reread what i said.
photography has been a means of information, discoveries, exclamations of self, and especially in black an white format ( film), expressions in portraits that color cannot render properly.
Carry this to digital cameras. Now, it is more the norm to employ a DSLR, that at first glance, would be mistaken for a 35mm SLR body with those lenses.
After my Yashica and Rich cameras, lenses, filters and gear were ‘liberated’, I was not about to outlay thde cash for “a replacement kit”. So, I bit the Kodak line.
I still have it, and use it for online video creation.
That is not AI, and that bridge is for the next generation, not me.