Setting aside the fact that you could probably have specified “flat” instead of “very flat” and still obtained much the same result, it doesn’t look flat to me anyway! Perhaps it’s an optical illusion, but it seems to follow the curvature of the cylinder.

So what work are both of you claiming was stolen to produce this picture that was requested to be produced in the style of Claude Monet?

All of the pixels are stolen because of the way that AI learns. More importantly, NONE of the pixels are yours. It might satisfy you to churn out this stuff, but it certainly doesn't make you an artist. It doesn't make AI an artist, either.

It's a bit like Eric Morecambe when he said "I was playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order."

The issue was whether or not the art is original. As there is no artist involved, then it cannot be considered as art. That's my point. You may choose to think otherwise, but you won't persuade me that these are works of art.

As I see it, the issue is whether the piece (however derivative it may be) deserves to be called ‘art’. Everything ever written uses letters and words which — with the exception of neologisms — have been used before, but they’re put together in different ways. Likewise, everything ever painted uses materials that a true artist could use, but imitating the style of, say, Monet or Manet or Picasso or Pissarro doesn’t put the work on a par with that of the masters.

Well, if it is not a work of art, what is it?

Indeed. It was JAmedia and Ali who used the word "stolen".

Yet neither has stated what, exactly, precisely, they are claiming has been stolen.

So perhaps

Original artwork

rather than

Original art

?