It doesn't matter whether you are able to distinguish human-made from computer-made "art". The distinction exists by definition, irrespective of whether you can actually tell the difference in practice. Just like many past events are now lost to time and will never be remembered, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.

One possibly interesting sidenote are the fake Vermeers made by Han van Meegeren (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_van_Meegeren)

So accurate were these fakes - not copies, but new paintings in Vermeer's style - that several experts verified them as real, and then tried to sue to save their reputations.

These fakes were certainly made by a human, but are somewhat mechanical in the sense that they were copying someone else, much like an AI copy of existing artists.

The interesting thing here is that once van Meegeren was exposed he became famous in his own right and his 'fakes' became valuable, not as fakes, but as genuine Han van Meegeren originals.

Just to be clear. Your idea is that something is art when it was made by a human. And a perfect replication of it somehow loses the trait, and becomes non-art? This makes zero sense. This would make only the physical object itself the art, and it wouldn't matter what form it has?

Of course it makes sense - a print is different than an original, they have a different price, they have a different impact. Even when it is a very good print.

For that matter, a limited run print has a different impact and value than an unlimited run print. Compare an original warhol print of a can of soup, to a modern repr print, to an actual can of soup, to an I <3 NY t-shirt.

So digital art cannot exist?