The definition i'm using is a commonly held one. Art is subjective, and obviously people disagree about what is and isn't art, but most people agree that some degree of human intent and expression is required, at a baseline, for something to be considered art.

But your definition seems to be that anything which elicits an emotional response is art, which seems far less useful.

I suppose it could be argued that because AI requires models and prompts, the end result could be considered art. Also that it's art simply due to the controversy it provokes. Then again, I have a difficult time considering something art if it can be exactly duplicated with the correct inputs. To that end, the human being doesn't really matter. To me, if the human being doesn't matter, it isn't art. I'd also dismiss most "generative" art for the same reason - even if fractals are pretty I wouldn't consider them art.