It could if the audience did not know the piece was generated by a machine. This has already been proven when art critics gushed praise over works which turned out to have been made by a chimpanzee [1].
Unless you're autistic or awkward there's no easier way to deceive people than to get them to perceive that "spark" of another being. Look at how people see faces in plant stems, rock formations on Mars, etc.
One of the few things G. W. Bush regrets is that time he said he looked in Vladimir Putin's eyes and got a sense of his soul.
A.I. search is more creative than most people think; Edison himself said "Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration."
People have been writing programs since the late 1960s that imitate the later works of
these might even fool an art historian if you made them with an oil painting robot.
ELIZA could pass as a human somewhat in the 1960s. On a day when I'm feeling awkward I feel envious of GPT-3 which, being a pile of nothing but biases devoid of understanding, passes as a neurotypical really well.
in this way.