Conceptual art is not about the artefact that comprises the work, but the conversation that artefact creates with the viewer.

If you put both in front of someone with no idea about conceptual art, there’s a real chance you might be right. If they happen not to “get” the work or understand the context or just know enough about conceptual art, then a viewer might easily miss the point.

But a computer could not have conceived Duchamp’s urinal, not with our current technology. You’re probably going to need AGI for that (which I’m certain will arrive eventually).

Well I suppose a machine could accidentally create good art, just like a human could. But it would only appear to be good art, the same way that randomly enumerating all possible HD images would at some point produce a Picasso.

But deliberately, no, it couldn’t, not yet, and human conceptual artists could make far far superior art than a machine. Because great art requires understanding the human condition and deep reasoning about the world.