How is this more "naive and shallow" than the assertion that art is somehow inconquerable by machines because it is supposedly so hard, without any evidence for

How is this more "naive and shallow" than the assertion that art is somehow inconquerable by machines because it is supposedly so hard, without any evidence for this claim? I personally think the definition in Wikipedia captures my sentiment quite well: > Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative, conceptual ideas, or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power. Since I limited my discussion to art meant to be consumed for "consumer-grade" entertainment purposes, I'd focus more on the last part. I just think that it is possible, maybe even likely, that by using ML, we may at one point be able to "pinpoint" what humans, perceive to have "beauty and emotional" power and generate that. Have the networks learn the same rules that artists learn indirectly, so to speak. And I while this is probably a really hard problem, I don't see why this should be the "last" problem to be solved - we seem quite a bit closer here than we are in many other domains.