I guess that depends on where you set the bar to qualify as 'art'. I think I agree with you, but only if much 'cultural output', even if passionately enjoyed by millions of consumers, is excluded from the realm of 'art'. Generic pop music, the crappiest TV and film content, pastel pictures of fields of flowers - which in fact represents the bulk, by volume, of what technically would be called 'culture', at least for econometric purposes, could probably be generated by AI with little or no human involvement in the near future, if not already. Genuine 'art', that actually extends the boundaries of the human perception of the world and our existence? According to my definition - and I imagine yours - that could logically never come from a machine that is itself incapable of experiencing the existential dread and ineffable beauty of being human.

But if enough people insist on changing the definition, the dictionary is forced to follow suit, right?