My memory of this is really fuzzy, so I'm probably getting the details wrong. I watched a documentary in roughly the early oughts about AI. The presenter might

My memory of this is really fuzzy, so I'm probably getting the details wrong. I watched a documentary in roughly the early oughts about AI. The presenter might have been Alan Alda. In one segment, he visited some military researchers who were trying to get a vehicle to drive itself. It would move only a few inches or feet at a time as it had to stop to recalculate. In another segment, he visited some university researchers who set up a large plotter printer to make AI-generated art. It was decent. He saw it could depict things like a person and a pot, so he asked if it would ever do something silly to us like put a person in a pot. The professor said not to be silly. To jokingly answer the title question: everyone who saw that one specific documentary 20 years ago knew that AI art was way ahead of AI machines. Art is useful when someone subjectively finds it enjoyable or meaningful. While it might not achieve all of what humans can, the barrier to entry is relatively lower.