A machine could carve a sculpture in ten minutes, while a Sculptor could spend hours carving and working with the skills they have. Sure, you can have a machine make the sculpture for you. It might even look better than what the sculptor can do. But the problem is when you tell that machine to make something that is based on the Sculptor's work. The Sculptor, who worked hours honing their skill, and putting their passion into their piece. There is no passion from artwork created solely by machines.
Plenty of people can make better art than me - plenty of people do a lot of things better than me. But what we make with our own skills (whatever the level of skill) is something we can call our own. Otherwise, it's a soulless imitation of culture.
I have books available at www.stupidfoxstore.com :)
Those a really good points and I agree with your take on Alternative Medicine. Alternative medicine does have its uses, like AI Art can have its uses. Both could be supplemental tools in their respective fields. My idea of it was based off a quote by Tim Minchin, “You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? - Medicine.” -- and saw people arguing about AI Art in a similar way by questioning, specifically, the word "Art" and what defines something as "Art".