There's definitely nothing about humans that is irreproducible - but the machines aren't even close yet. You clearly didn't read the article.

The entire point here was that the poetry written by LLMs is valid, shallow and has appeal only to the uninformed.

Article:

In my view, the results of the study are less testaments to the “quality” of machine poetry than to the wider difficulty of giving life to poetry. It takes reading and rereading to experience what literary critic Derek Attridge has called the “event” of literature, where “new possibilities of meaning and feeling” open within us. In the most significant kinds of literary experiences, “we feel pulled along by the work as we push ourselves through it”.

[ ... ]

When readers say they prefer AI poetry, then, they would seem to be registering their frustration when faced with writing that does not yield to their attention. If we do not know how to begin with poems, we end up relying on conventional “poetic” signs to make determinations about quality and preference.

This is also true of AI art.

The pattern matching machines will give us more of the same: glossy and regurgitated.

You will not find a machine that will output excellent work that when found 20 years later will become a sensation. They produce gold painted dross.

This is another condemnation of art and cultural education in the West.

Yes, technically you are correct.

But current technology will not do that. LLMs are not going to get much better, we need more complex setups.