My objection isn't to the article. It's not to saying that "AI-Art Isn't Art". My objection is to an art world that accepted Duchamp's "ready-mades" as art. They are not art, for the exact same reason that the article gives.
It's not just the intention of the artist at a superficial level - someone intending something to be art, therefore it's art. As the article says, it's a skillful artist intending us to think and feel and experience what the artist did, and creating something that will make us do so. Signing a urinal doesn't do that, no matter how much the artist "intended" it to be art.
So what I'm saying is that, in the same way that AI-art is not art, the working definition of much of the art world for the last century has been labeling other things "art" that also are not art.