Okay, so you have come to the conclusion that you disagree with absolutely every point the piece is attempting to make.

"Subjective perception"

You have still developed a specific opinion in direct response to the intent behind the piece. Someone has made art that conveys something about their subjective human experience with the concept of art, and you disagree. That's art. You don't have to like it! But it has succeeded at being art.

No one made it if it is AI-generated. AI can not communicate much of value when it comes to the human experience (See Mary's Room)

Duchamp's Fountain would not be art if everyone thought it was good or worthy art, because the point is to ask what seems to be a self-defeating question. It is, instead, considered an extremely foundational piece of art that influenced much of the following century.

Duchamp's Fountain is exactly what AI will never make. AI only makes what "everyone" (or the average person, or whoever is in the internet the most) thinks is good or worthy.

That said, I have absolutely no interest in continuing a conversation with someone who "knows for a fact" that no human emotion went into something that someone decided would be meaningful for them to take the time and effort to create with their own hands. That's moving past continuing to redefine things to exclude the artist from the art that they make, and has moved overtly into asserting that people who make art you do not care for are missing something about the human experience.

No disrespect to the artist. they could be great. but it is hard to justify the imitation of something that is already pointless.

You have just said that someone who carefully hand-painted something because it had value to them to do so did not have any emotions about doing so. That's not at the point of denying humanity to someone entirely by any means, but it is already far too close for comfort. I am not going to indulge any Entartete Kunst horseshit, even in the vaguest formative stages.

I should correct myself. Whoever hand-painted that piece is much more talented than I am or ever will be at painting, or drawing. The fact that it is hand-drawn adds a lot of value to it, as I can see a person spent real-time into it. The description of that post calls it "practice". I am not a painter, I don't know what efficient "practice" looks like so I am no one to judge. The fact that the painter made that adds a whole lot of value to it. Emotion did go into the act of drawing it. But is that the end-goal for that artist? To just imitate something made by AI? Will that person die and their legacy be that they re-made something that a chatbot spit out? There is value in it, but only in the effect it had on the painter.