I wanted to add that it kind of bothers me how they use the survey data to validate the programs experiments. It seems misleading to me as most people have trouble differentiating between digital pieces and analog pieces these days anyway as the lines become more and more blurred. Digital techniques are constantly getting better at simulating real media and to the untrained eye it's easy to be deceived by it. I just don't trust a survey like that to tell me how authentic these generated paintings look. Most people just don't care enough to study painting in the kind of capacity to know difference unless it's blatantly obvious. So a survey like is more than likely going to produce positive results for the experiments as the bar is pretty low for most people. Why not have artists and art historians take a survey like that? Why not get the real deal if your goal is to make something inauthentic seem authentic? Otherwise what is the goal here? To deceive the mass public (which is easy) or to create a program that can actually make human-like paintings?