My argument is not a slippery slope, though I see how it could easily go that way. I outline the kind of multi-factor understanding the AI would have to have to be considered to have understood "hand".

This "hand understanding" could probably be simplified for an artistic concept of "hand".

I believe a computer "understands" basic arithmetic on a non-conscious level. I haven't been convinced it understands the human hand, even in an artistic sense.

> "I've seen plenty of people claim they produce great art, when in reality it's terrible."

Yes. But other people typically don't go around saying that those people understand great art. Understand what makes it great.