@lethargilistic notice that I never said that AIs don't produce art, because I am not particularly interested in having a debate with some rando on the internet about "what is art". I said that an AI is incapable of producing anything new, which is a demonstrably true statement because it's literally how current AI technologies work (you feed a bunch of inputs and they produce a statistically likely output)

an AI can produce art that, as I said, is bland and pretty looking and could probably be concept art for a video game or a movie poster, but we are a long ways off from an AI being able to produce something that would be like Picasso (or indeed dadaism since you mention collage) -- i.e., something that changes our cultural understanding of what a piece of art could be. in order for such a thing to be possible, an AI would need to be able to not just produce statistically likely outputs but would also be able to need to reason in some way and perform a synthesis of different sources of "empirical" data (to whatever extent an AI can be considered to receive phenomenal stimuli)

unless of course you believe that general intelligence is just spitting out statistically likely outputs from a set of inputs, which is already a longstanding philosophical debate that goes very far outside the scope of what we currently call "AI"