Yes, and I could hire a team of "umvi experts" that study 1000 samples of my written signature. Then it would be really hard for people to forge my signature because I have a team of experts that have studied me to the point they know my subconscious nuances. That doesn't mean I have any skill whatsoever, it just means people wasted time training their neural nets to recognize my idiosyncrasies in order to prevent forgeries.
So basically, you're saying that Pollock is easy to forge, as long as no one understand what makes his paintings distinctive?
I mean, I could probably spot an amateurish Pollock forgery, and I'm no expert. And while forging his general style would be difficult, forging specific works would be nearly impossible - the layers are very specific. It would be even harder to forge drip technique paintings, where his direct control of the "brush" was limited.
> So basically, you're saying that Pollock is easy to forge, as long as no one understand what makes his paintings distinctive?
I'm saying it's easy to make Pollock-esque paintings. I bet you could study Pollock for a few hours and then make a Pollock-esque painting that would fool 99.9% of the population. You can't do that with Michelangelo.
> forging specific works would be nearly impossible - the layers are very specific.
Obviously. That's like me throwing a fistful of sand on the floor and taking a picture of it and saying it would be very hard for someone to forge the picture because the sand grain positioning is very specific - which is technically true.
Why don't you provide some evidence for your claim, since you believe all the evidence in the OP is invalid?
I could claim that whatever it is you do (including your HN comment) is no more complex or interesting than monkeys banging on typewriters.
Saying that careless sprinkling sand is as good as a Pollack is very nearly the same as saying picking numbers off the top of your head is as good as a secure RNG for crypto. It's not, in ways only an ingorant person fails to understand.
