That's actually untrue to me as a professional artist. A.I. art has shown me that cheap permutations (which have been done in art even before A.I.) can still capture the untrained eye. I don't think that's anything particularly new.

And absolutely, however creativity is the tip of the spear which pushes beyond constraints to develop novel AND meaningful style (like Beksinski, Kopera, Kostetsky, Moebius, etc).

Nice try.

Are saying that all artists that got fooled by AI art, have untrained eyes ?

If notion of "trained eyes" were to ever have meaning, this would be it.

If "No True Scotsman" were to ever have meaning, this would be it.

AI art has won multiple competitions for photography and art. Is your claim that all the judges of these competitions were "untrained eyes"?

If they couldn't tell it was AI, yes. Winning an art competition is by itself paradoxical in undermining the point of art, so I don't know how that's relevant, but it is certainly an impressively weak point.

So how would one define "trained eye" without having to defer to your personal opinion? You don't think there is any merit to the point that people chosen by the community of artists to judge art are fooled by it?