One thing I hear a lot from process puritans when they misunderstand Dada: "But dadaists created things!" Actually, no, part of what makes Dada interesting is their penchant for appropriation and random art. This is one of the reasons the gatekeepers of the time HATED them.
Dadaists were accused of being immoral, making art harder to sell at higher prices, and disturbing the ability of future artists to make a living doing art. Stop me if you've heard any of this before.
It's easy to write off now, but the discussion around the Fountain was a big deal. The fountain was decried in the most passionate of terms by the art establishment. Where's the art? They would ask. Marcel Duchamp literally went to a store and bought a urinal, then signed it.
Unfortunately, Francis Picabia was right, and Dada did become less scorned over the years. But the establishment never owned it. Dada is subversive art because it causes conversation about the nature of art, much in the same way that AI does today. Context and tone are everything.
The post Dada vanguard movements faced similar disdain from the old timers in the art world. All of them, like Dada were eventually accepted, regardless of how weird their antics or tools were. The current generation of avant-garde art being accomplished with AI is no different.
And if any of this bothers you, just remember this one key detail: Dada belongs to the malcontents of the art world. It is a state of mind. It is readily apparent, just by speaking to someone if they're a Dadaist, or if they're not. Dada is life.