Leaving aside the fact that machines can’t learn what does it mean to say the machine “did most of the work?” What is the “work” in creating a painting? Is it the determination of what is to be painted, selection of the style to use, type of paint and brush? or is it in the act of creation itself, of combining all those things together into a final form (in the mind) and then translating that to canvas in the form of a finished painted work? or is it both of those things? It doesn’t really matter because in either case to suggest a machine is capable of doing any of them in the absence of human intervention is badly misguided. There is no such thing as AI created art and maybe never can be. In order for an AI to create a work of art one must exist. That is still not the case today and it is no sure thing that it will/can happen in the next 500 years or so. What we have today is nothing more then the evolution of modern computing. Modern computers were used to create art in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000’s and they are being used to create art today. I think that’s great and a credit to the artists have have used the technology available of their time. Never has a computer or machine conceived of and completed a work of art without the significant intervention of man in the process. This is still the fact of the matter today, and does not appear to be on the cusp of changing anytime soon. I think it a more important question to ask is what it says about us that we believe a machine is capable of creating it? To me it suggests that though we often say otherwise, as a species we actually find very little value in art. That can’t be correct, can it?