As a 10/10er, I think the fact that people tend to score less goes to show that:

1. The photos are low-res enough to hide the most ridiculous artifacts produced by neural nets

2. The machine-generated images are trying to emulate the likes of van Gogh, not the likes of Leonardo (again hiding the extent of NNs complete inability to understand what they're doing)

3. Most people simply neither paint nor appreciate visual art, so this is not as powerful as the Turing test! (One point of the Turing test is that a human easily passes it, because all humans speak; they don't all paint.)

It's much simpler than that. This is NOT a Turing test in that the computer generated images have been selected beforehand from the best results. What users are grading here is not the quality of the algorithm that generated the pictures; it's the quality of the choice made by the human who selected these specific pictures among all the examples of computer-generated art.

9/10. The low res made it harder to tell which one was computer generated, but it was still pretty clear. Now if they could do it full size, I'd start to be interested.

https://deepart-io.s3.amazonaws.com/hi-res/leon3.jpg - hi-res version of the algorithm is ready. Soon we will make the second edition of the test, stay tuned.

What's deep about this is how deep it is in uncanny valley. The stuff you're doing is super interesting though, don't take it too harshly.

this is great work kidzik. looking forward to see more about it. hi-res are quite good, that even if in the uncanny they can be quite a success for deepart lovers.

Thanks! We teamed up with the authors of the original algorithm and Leon figured out quickly how to improve resolution.

9/10 , FB share not working . I would really like to see result for higher res images . For now I will just pass and not comment on the results .