> Pretentious is reducing the work of one of the most highly acclaimed film makers of our time to “weird for the sake of weird” and “lol an AI could make that”.

No, that isn't pretentious, that's just an opinion you personally find offensive.

Nothing you've said in an attempt to refute what I've said contradicts anything I've said. You just don't like the way I've summed it up.

> Really insightful criticism.

I mean, I've been elaborating, although it's been hard to have a fun discussion since in my opinion you've been combative from the start.

> Pretentious is suggesting his work has no substance, when a poll by BBC Culture of 177 film critics from 36 countries named Mulholland Drive the best film of the 21st century.

I didn't say his films had no substance, first of all, no where can you quote me saying anything like that. I do find them fairly superficial with the surrealism doing a lot of the heavy lifting with peopel interpreting a lot and giving more credit than is due, but that's hardly the same thing now, is it?

Besides, I bet a lot of films on that list don't have a lot of substance and are just fun, and there's nothing wrong with that.

> There are plenty of directors whose works that I don’t personally appreciate but I would never be so arrogant to suggest an AI could reproduce them.

Because you find the notion offensive, fine. I think AI could replicate even directors I do like and find to have a lot of depth, though. I think ultimately everything can be reduced to data and patterns and heuristics and an AI will be able to mimic styles frighteningly well.

> How many Palme D’ors and academy awards do you have.

If I said even 1, you realize that shouldn't affect the merit of any argument I've made, right?