My feelings on AI art are complex and it's a bit of a Gordian knot type problem. However something happened the other day that has been a bee in my bonnet ever since. Out walking the doggo, we found a whole deer skeleton, picked pretty clean. I took a few photographs on my phone, for no particular reason other than it was a pretty novel sight.
On the way home it occurred to me that if I took the images of the skeleton and spent a few hours playing around on Photoshop/GIMP, then the end product might be something seen as a piece of art. However, if I spent a few hours "remixing" the images on an AI art programme (which requires knowledge of the programme's syntax and other quirks, analagous to the skills needed to use image manipulation software effectively), then most people would not consider that art.
There's no easy answer to that I can think of, but reading this thread reminded me of the conundrum and now it's going to annoy me for the rest of the day! Perhaps I should go and re-read Benjamin's The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction and see if it offers any insights.