About just as interesting as automatically generated novels. A machine has no intention. It doesn't "want" to turn itself on or off and play some music.
Edit: I should say, I do think that a lot of electronic music should be considered craft rather than art. But not all of it.
Does it have intention? Is there any way to distinguish a sound file with intention from one without? Are the bits the wrong color?
There is a way of distinguishing a musician that plays "automatically" from a musician that plays with its heart. Every musician knows that the best performance is made when he/she is sincere.
Plus, you're talking about the "bits", that is the "form" but i'm talking about the content. You can have a machine spray some paint with some constrained rules on a canvas and reproduce the style of famous painters. But it will never have its own style, its own intention. No original and new message to communicate.
It's true today's algorithms might not be completely original, but then again neither are most humans. And this isn't a strict limitation, computers could learn to experiment with new patterns, or generalize further than mere imitation.
So I pretend there is free will, and therefore the same "product" can mean different things to me depending on what the creator tried to convey. To give a silly example, I somewhat liked the song "I kissed a girl", but now that I know a dude wrote it, I don't anymore. I would fully agree that this is totally arbitrary; but I don't tell others what to like, I just have my own reasons for (not) liking things. And when AI happens I will be convinced that humans partly made it to escape themselves and their responsibility, and so I'll be with the luddites, pouting :P
"What is true is already so.
Owning up to it doesn't make it worse.
Not being open about it doesn't make it go away.
And because it's true, it is what is there to be interacted with.
Anything untrue isn't there to be lived.
People can stand what is true,
for they are already enduring it."
—Eugene Gendlin
So in the meantime I accept that my desire to do or not do a lot of things is irrational which also implies I pretend there even is such a "thing" as "me", separate from everything else, for which there is no rational basis either. When you say "accept irrational beliefs", I think that presumes a baseline of pure rationality which I doubt any human ever achieved. So while I loved that quote and thank you for it, I also have to say that it might go both ways :)
Like babies? (Well, most of the time.)