People often argued that a Jackson Pollock style of artwork is not art because they just threw paint on a canvas. Of course, Pollock did think about the proces

People often argued that a Jackson Pollock style of artwork is not art because they just threw paint on a canvas. Of course, Pollock did think about the process, there's more form to his works than that. Similarly, if you just arbitrarily mash music samples together you're unlikely to get anything that's really listenable music ... you need a little more for it too be creative. Indeed, we often describe work as "derivative" when it's not particularly creative, it lacks spark. That seems like the definition of generative models. But then probably most human artwork is substantially derivative (in the art-critic sense). If you provide "oddly specific input", then you've provided the creative seed, growing that seed is impressive work, but it is work with a different fundamental character.