I'm not going to cut throats over banners, chill out. And also it'd seem I wasn't clear with my points. I understand that AI can still produce art. My point was that if AI is used to make art it's used the same way as any other tool, but randomly generating pictures is an edge case.
One could argue that this is just natural evolution. Before, when you made a nice picture (let's say on a canvas) it was one-of-a-kind, and that made it more special, more art-y. But, if you'd have used AI instead, you could have gotten an infinite number pictures all with similar artistic values. However, I'd say that this isn't true, because afaik sometimes what the machine gives back to you is very bad (by means of not achieving the goals of the artist), and you have to regenerate it. This means that you can't call "all" AI generated images art even if it was made with care.
Compared to your music example, I agree. But, I believe you haven't considered the fact that it is still one-of-a-kind. No matter the instrument (because the new electronic sounds are just that basically).
Picture the scenario where somebody (A nobody with no goals, motives, or deep thoughts) just press a couple of buttons and some toon starts playing. "It's pleasing ig" is the only feeling you get from it. Or get someone, with passion and a dream, to use the same method, but instead of stopping at the first toon, they continue to improve it, to refine it, to redo it as many times as it takes for it to be perfect. Imo I'd consider scenario A's result and B's failed attempts to not be art, B's result however is art.