Comment by smoldesu

We don't know if it's surprising, the author never tells us their hypothesis. They don't state any particular reason for the prompt they used, they don't explore the contents or qualities of the prompt compared to other AI-generated art, and they don't run multiple trials. Because of that, we can't conclude anything useful from this article. There's no frame of reference or scientific inquiry involved. If you find it entertaining, that's fine. As a scientific comparison, this verges on parody.