No, I understand the insults and ad hoc requirements just fine. And I can point you back to the decades and decades of literature about how anyone can be an artist and how anything can be art. The stuff that was openly and readily said until the second people started making art with AI. As for "push of a button", Visarga has already done a decent job of explaining how that's not actually the case. Not that I have any issue with people doing the metaphorical button push either.

>Skill is nature's way of gatekeeping.

Yeah and it worked great until industrial agriculture let lots of people eat who had no skill at agriculture. In fact, our entire history as a species is a long history of replacing Skill with machines to enable more people to access the skill. If it gives you sad feelings that people without skill can suddenly do more cool things, thats entirely a you problem.

>skill

>too lazy

Again, I wholly reject the idea that there's a line between 'tech people' and 'art people'. You can have an interest in both art and tech. You can do both 'traditional art' and AI art. I also reject the idea that AI tools require no skill, that's clearly not the case.

>nature

This can so easily be thrown back at you.

>why should anyone want to hear what "you" (ie: the machine) have to say?

So why are we having this discussion in the first place? Right, hundreds of millions are interested in exploring and creating with AI. You are not fighting against a small contingent who are trying to covet the meaning of "artist" or whatever. No, it's a mass movement of people being creative in a way that you don't like.