Machine-generated content isn't "art" because there isn't intention or a point of view, it's just audio/visual stimuli. It doesn't mean it can never be interesting, it doesn't mean it can't even be beautiful. But it's not art, not to me.

That said, I can readily acknowledge that artists can use AI as a tool in the creation of their art. I don't have a philosophical or intellectual problem with viewing AI as a tool and believing it can be a powerful aid in the creation of POV-driven art.

But there is a line somewhere between "no AI" and "entirely AI" that turns it from art to stimuli. I can't define it exactly, and even if I could, knowing that a particular work was partially created by AI creates a requirement that I trust the creator that the bulk of what I'm engaging with is from them, not the machine. And it's very difficult for me to make that leap of trust.

Because there is no point. If the author is a stochastic people machine it is simply not interesting to reflect on it. The fact people make artefacts turns them into art. A stone is not a work of art without some human doing something with it.

You may argue that stones can be interesting without beeing works of art. But the generator above takes works of art as input and somehow takes the art out if it to some degree.