The reason Kinkade couldn’t do Dada is because the kind of work Kinkade did was antithetical to Dadaist ethos. Especially around commercial art in general.
Dada sees the commercialization and productization as a crime, an odious trade. Francis Picabia literally put it on trial. "You are indicted, stand up like you're singing hail to the king, or saluting the flag" and so forth.
Remember Berlin: The purpose of art is to change the world, bring about progressive change, and use your voice to discuss your epoch. One need not even be a conventional artist to do it. All skillsets are required, and membership in Dada is open to anyone, even its critics.
About the argument you're alluding to and why you're wrong: I think you're completely misunderstanding or unaware of the basics of the technology we're talking about, how it works, what it's capable of, and more importantly, what people are doing with it.
You would be forgiven for this, because it's an interesting discussion. But let's play with your handicap here and talk about it anyway.
Intent, tools and aesthetics
Dada levies criticism at a lot of things. Commercialism, capitalism, morality, property, reason itself, intellectual property, and yes even basics of intent, whether the intent or lack thereof is being lied about or not. And indeed a Dadaist has the right to lie about intent. Surrealists like Dali also lied about intent, though.
I would argue here that as it relates to AI, the work can be created without intent. You can press the button without typing anything and get work that looks like it was created without intent.
But the opposite is also true. You can spend three months learning how to train models, spend weeks working with sketching for ControlNet, using loras, hypernets, and embeds to exercise as much human intent as you deem appropriate.
It's as challenging as any other artistic discipline, and it shows when people are using the more sophisticated use cases. If your thesis here is that "intent" isn't possible with AI, you're factually unaligned.
The other mistake you're making is assuming that Dada is an aesthetic. It's not. Just go back to Tzara 1, where they talk about schools, and aesthetics in general. Dada honors no aesthetic.
If the argument is moral, there's no support for "moral" arguments in Dada -- morality is a lie and all moral arguments are self serving.