I don't think these points have been proven as decisively as you feel. Whether it was verified or not, the provenance of a work of art has a significant effect

I don't think these points have been proven as decisively as you feel. Whether it was verified or not, the provenance of a work of art has a significant effect on how a viewer receives it. So much of why the Mona Lisa matters is because of the cultural lore around it. People don't flock to it because of the wavelengths of light coming off of it, or its physical dimensions. I have a hard time imagining the same kind of mythology building around most AI work, at the moment, largely due to the low marginal cost of production. In the case of the state fair, the judges didn't know that AI had participated in the construction of the art. I would argue that a fair evaluation would require being honest about how it was made. It may have resonated with the judges because they were impressed that a human being used a digital tablet in Photoshop to produce these pixels, the implicit assumption they made when they evaluated it. Even if there is human ingenuity involved in creating visual hints and writing prompts, a judge will need to understand that process in order to properly appreciate that. We can advocate for philosophies of art that consider only the final product, but this doesn't mesh with how people empirically relate to art.