burn before reading, a reply to a specific context

It's a fine enough question on it's face, and in the most ideal of settings there's a path to consideration for a.i. generated media as art, but in a sub sub category of art, where it is acknowled by definition as the sum of the work by an entirely unseen entity. Like video games photography, nobody respects Video Games photography, nor should they, outside of the limited scope of choices made and edits employed in post by the supposed photographer. they didn't code the software the camera is based on, they didn't model the meshes or draw the textures. It is taken for granted that the choices that remain are how these elements are presented and "captured", and that makes it art. and why individuals like SunhiLegend have a right to their craft.
However, we cannot extend similar contrivances to a.i.  prompters. The models that form the basis of even the simplest of images were created without permission, and in it's execution obfuscates the source. a perfect image generated by a.i. comes from filing away the signature of the persons that made the source imagery and pasting over them with enough similar looking elements to further hide this fact. Generative in this context may as well be a lie. and this doesn't even take into consideration the scope of choices made by the prompter, since various random components of the end result are often not a result of any actions or choices made by the prompter. they are merely accepting choices made by another artist, specific shading colours, shapes. while an acceptable refrain in this context might be to put a I generated imagery in the same sub sub category as something like a piccrew (a toy essentially), the wider context surrounding a.i. goes far beyond that. We cannot take the Minor pseudo choices a piccrew gives us and step over the original artist and sell the piccrew. By and large this is what a i supporters propagate. and they often succeed in doing so. transforming entire spaces that supported normal trained and in training artists materially through engagement and monetary support into a race with a.i. prompters. A race they cannot win. This is unacceptable, and even if anyone wanted to defend the supposed rights of the hobbyist prompter whoms engagement might begin and end at "it's a toy" they cannot be allowed to be used because of what the people behind them stand to gain, total market saturation and the erasure of the traditional draft artist