Like all ai-or-not tests this fails to keep a similar high quality threshold for both kinds so it intends to waste time not appreciation of either kind of art.

The curator was selecting human output for overlap with ai flaw/artifacts that are likely to confuse at a glance. He wasn't selecting randomly above a high quality threshold for both kinds as implied.

Typically AI is boring, takes the easy way out upon further inspection, likes lone straight lines and face front on shots and it just so happens there are many tests which he found old human examples of this, with large perspective/lighting flaws as well.

I don't care what the point of art is consesused to be, or if elephant-made art is distinguishable from a 5th grader's art.

The turing test was "obsolete" before eliza time, the solution was: it doesn't matter to me because i'm using it as if it were human.