I never understand this creativity argument against AI. How is creativity different than adding some randomness to the answer generating? I would say that computers are perfectly capable of that.
Well, that puts you pretty deep into questions of the philosophy of art, the inner workings of AI, and what the person was predicting about those things when they wrote it.
If I train an art-generating ML model exclusively on pictures of cats and dogs, we might expect it to only be able to generate pictures of cats, dogs, and perhaps cat-dog hybrids.
In a sense it's able to create things outside of the bounds of the training set, as there were no cat-dog hybrids in the training set. But in another sense, it's unable to create things outside those bounds, as it can't create pictures of horses or astronauts.
Some would say the latter is needed for true creativity, boundless possibilities being a defining property of art.
In the case of current image generating ML models, their training set wasn't limited to cats and dogs - but it was limited to the art you could scrape from the web in ~2022.
And of course Kapoor was writing this in 2002, so was presumably judging the artfulness of a hypothetical image generation system.
Deterministic systems are clearly not creative. But randomness is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for creativity.
Adding random noise to an image makes it grainy (like TV static from back in the day), it doesn't lead to new masterpieces.