> a computer can write “I love you” but what does that statement mean if the computer cannot feel love?

Actually, it's not different from humans. What gives "I love you" meaning is the actions, for example, caring about the other persons well-being. If a computer cares about someone, for example, by protecting it, that alone gives "I love you" the meaning, regardless of what computer can really feel or if the phrase "I love you" was just programmed into it.

I don't see this as that big of a problem? Something can be beautiful without being art, but art tends to elicit a different kind of discussion specifically because there is intent behind it.

As a thought experiment, consider a particularly beautiful natural formation (like corals or intricately eroded rock). It can be beautiful without it being art. If someone then told me that it was actually sculpted by a person, then to me it's now art. I can ponder what the person was trying to express when they created it. If someone else then told me the previous person lied and it's really just a natural formation, then it's back to being not art.

If we were able to detect "intent" in an algorithm (although that is a hairy discussion in and of itself - arguably we could consider objective functions intents, but in that case I defer to the individual's interpretation as to whether that's intent or just clean study of a mathematical process), then yes, it would become art.

The question then becomes - is the thing created by AI still considered to be created by human, or by nature? And based on this, we can then classify it as art or not.

If an AI is able to present intent clearly and consistently (uhh, intentionally) then it might be able to produce art.

So far, I haven't seen any purely AI work that meets this criteria. They can have style but lack the "story" quality of the art built on shared language, culture. Essentially grammar and semantics of given art form. Problem is similar to though harder than making AI really understand language.

These system generally end at style which is like an ensemble average of syntax.

If a pianist playfully improvises, mindlessly, without intent, does that mean she is not creating art? Sure, you can say that her intent is to maximize her own pleasure.. but then, how it is different from evolution?

It reminds me, is intent the same thing as objective? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXQPL9GooyI

Take a chat bot that can pass the Turing Test. It seems human to the observer, but that doesn't mean it is. And when the observer learns of their mistaken belief, the chat bot doesnt just then become a bot.

I personally don't need to know anything about the circumstances of the creation of art piece to think of it as art (or sometimes not). If the author relies on this (for his work to be judged as art), he should have put it into the work itself.

Yes. That's what is whole thing is about - AI cannot create art because it lacks a human component.

A tighter question would be can animals create art? I don't know the answer to that one.

What I mean by "deny the capability to create art" is that you decided that whatever the AI might have created in the future, and without even looking at it, it's not art.

It's sort of an extreme position, I think.

"If you determine what is art based on the process of its creation, and not solely on the result, then you deny AI the capability to create art."

OK and?

That statement is ridiculous on the surface, but humans have always used tools and machines to produce art, which have gotten more and more sophisticated over time. No matter what machine is used, there's still a human designing the thing.

There's no magical cutoff where you can say "This was not produced by a human". It's just that the degree of indirection has increased over time.