“If artificial intelligence creates better art, what’s wrong with that?“

I think there is a general misconception of what that means when AI is creating art. Behind the image you see there is a human creating the prompts, curating what is generated, and often editing the product intensely. There is also the subject of the vast quantity of existing art and images that the AI had learned from in its training, and the humans behind the training.

AI isn’t the artist, AI is just another brush; albeit a very powerful one, which allows artists to create much more quickly and perhaps pieces and projects that they would not have had time for previously. AI is just another tool, it’s not the creative mind behind the work.

There's something about art created by humans that will never be replicated by AI.

It's the human factor. When you look at an art piece created by a human, you wonder about what the artist was thinking. You can sympathize with the artist since you're both human.

Similarly, music often sounds better on the radio, even if you're listening with worse speakers. The reason is because you know you're listening with other humans.

It's the human connection.

So while there's nothing wrong with it, I doubt I will hang AI art at home.

That "better" for many of us means more connected with expressing an actual human's perspective and creativity.

Not merely "expressing a human perspective" (abstract) but a human's perspective (of a specific individual).

Define ‘better art’