This gets at the true nature and divide of the issue:
Some feel art is merely a tangible product, or provided experience, while others feel, as you and I, that it is a process.
I’m gonna push it farther: It doesn’t just feel soul-less it IS soul-less. Where I would define the “soul” as a specific intentional cultural process behind the decisions.
As an artist, I’ve sat through a fair share of bad art, but it was produced by professionals and peers with quite a portfolio. Hell, I’ve made what I think is bad art. Considering what I just quoted and said, I think that some of my bad art was not art at all. I was getting paid to create a piece, and I had to just do it. It felt empty and meaningless, but ir was what they wanted… 
But we do have to, IF we are arguing that AI art produced by LLMs and artbots today is art, we do have to define art in a way that AI today can pass the test. I’ve still not seen that posted.
…and different way. Love this! Art allows us to express things that are often not expressible in other ways.
It’s what these threads do:
Artists have always been a bit quick to defend and dismiss new forms of art. I have to admit. When jazz Fusion hit the scene, many old masters claimed it wasn’t jazz because “it didn’t swing and wasn’t from New Orleans.” They claimed synthesizer music was not music because they weren’t “Playing” an instrument. So practically no “music” made after 1970 is actually music. 
So I still think a big part of this debate rests on how the AI truly is impacting the process on a case-by-case basis. It’s easy to try to lump it all together, but “easy” rarely solves any problems.
Edited for brevity.