Regarding photography, it is very debatable. What about Robert Capa or Robert Sargent's work for example ? They took photos that "accidentally" became artistic masterpieces; they didn't control any of the events going on. Same thing goes for animal photography for example, where the lion or bird can move at any moment, and where the photographer ought to influence the setting as little as possible.

No one believes that the computer "creates" by itself and thus is capable of art. Human input is still required. AI, in this case, is simply the writer's pen and paper. The art comes from what the person writing the prompt and generating the image wants to make you feel when you look at it.

You're talking about how AI opened the floodgates of slop, but the same arguments were made for photography but also for digital cameras and digital drawing equipment. Shooting a movie is infinitely easier now, thanks to digital cameras. This allowed millions of morons to flood the internet with brain-rot content, yet it also allowed David Fincher to create Zodiac (2007). Deviantart is full of terrible digital drawings, that were made possible thanks to Paint or Photoshop, yet it is also where Alex Andreyev published his horrifying yet stunning digital paintings.

The vast majority of digital artists, just like any other artists, is mediocre, and simply copies things they appreciate in hopes of making it big. Yet, be it through painting, cinema or image generation, some manage to deconstruct everything they have learned, and produce art that challenges your aesthetics ideas. For example, I found Eleanore Crook's work made with AI absolutely fascinating, and it definitely doesn't look like the shitty AI slop boomers love on Facebook.