No but they do feel - with measurable physiological correlates and emotional processes we can empathise with. There's nothing comparable in LLMs as they currently exist. No simulation of experience or emotion. There's no argument over whether or not they're communicating a lived experience - since they don't have one. Therefore anything they 'create' is pure stimulation for humans, good or bad entertainment. It cannot be the result of understanding or experience. Art can be entertaining but != entertainment. Pure entertainment has no artistic value, it doesn't attempt to have and shouldn't be evaluated on that criterion at all.

I think the definition of "art" is rather vague. It encompasses both the creative impulse to produce a work, and the technical skill to bring it into existence. But if one of these components is diminished in a certain work, does it still qualify as art? For example, a commercial artist producing an illustration for a client, using their drawing and painting skills would be considered art - even if it is as technical and linear a process as writing some boilerplate code.

Most artists never make anything worth appreciating.

Marx would disagree. Alienation from one’s work product is a very real form a suffering.