I suppose that means that he's having a hard time explaining to how to distinguish the AI version from his works. Like there's nothing along the lines of "This is clearly not my work because I don't draw dragon wings this way" he can say.

Not that he forgot what he drew and what he didn't.

That reads to me as "he looked at the details of the AI art, and had a hard time finding obvious issue in the 'technique'", not that he forgot about art he made.

And if they're somehow (just theoretically) genuinely indistinguishable even to the author - this prompts to question the value of originality.

Nonsense. A neural net of sufficiently high parameter count can learn a function to reproduce any digital representation of information. This argument would suggest that anything which can be represented digitally is therefore of minimal value.

> This argument would suggest that anything which can be represented digitally is therefore of minimal value.

Uh, not really like that. The original was about value in comparison, not an absolute value. I don't really see what's immediately wrong with an idea that anything digital has questionable value compared to its clones generated by a trained neural network (but absolute value of those could be still very high). It could be wrong - but it's not immediately obvious to me.

Weirdly this is like the best compliment I ever heard to AI Art.