The idea that artificial intelligence could produce art is met with numerous philosophical challenges. Among them, one of the chief questions is how an agent with no internal mental states could be an author. Given that most theories of art presuppose authorial intent, this paper attempts to reconcile it with computer-generated art. Namely, my main thesis is that hypothetical intentionalism enables the notion of AI being an author. To reasonably defend the theory of hypothetical intentionalism, I first need to eliminate the viability of actual intentionalism, as well as argue that other alternatives -- such as death of the author and anti-intentionalism -- are not as attractive. My argumentation will be divided into two chapters, although the points presented in each are mutually complementary. The first chapter will tackle the discourse of authorial intent. More specifically, it will critique various accounts of intentionalism. The ultimate claim of the chapter will be that hypothetical intentionalism is both the most philosophically sound position and the most supportive of computer-generated art. The second part will review the current technological state of artificial intelligence and contextualize it in a philosophically meaningful way. Most importantly, it will demonstrate that -- presupposing the truth of hypothetical intentionalism -- computer authors are able to meet all the criteria necessary for art generation. This paper presents authorial intent as an interactive, malleable entity rather than a one-way imposition. Consequently, it seeks to trigger contemplation of how we approach technology and artwork. Meaning is characterized as a public object that can be mass-produced by non-human subjects.