Nope, but this post is such a neat illustration of the richness of "life" that fits into 39 real parameters (each circle can be coordinatized as 3 real numbers: one for its radius and two for its center) that my first thought on seeing it was also "no surprise then that a matrix with a million entries can talk like an erudite person".

It should be obvious that this is entirely up to the reader. Take some responsibility for your own happiness. Nobody else is responsible for your enjoyment of anything.

Well, sort of? I mean, I've seen plenty of clever art in my life. I'm still figuring out AI. I posted that in the hope that someone in the community here would show up with something insightful to say.

Yes, it is impossible. People will think about things they find interesting regardless of your (dis-)approval. Who are you even calling "obsessive?" The collective of people who dare to mention algorithms you don't like? I mean, what the fuck?

Yes, this has been done in many forms with other algorithms. You score each generation with a model like CLIP, for example, and then you can evolve 'Mona Lisa made of triangles', say. A constraint like 'exactly 13 circles' will work fine. (And you might experiment with loosening it, like generating a lot of candidates with 5-30 circles each, as a 'library' or 'seeds', before shrinking them all towards 13, to see if you get novel animal designs which are find to find if you simply start the obvious way with 13 circles initialized to random points & sizes.)