My issue with AI art has less to do with its "originality" or even the fact that it "borrows" ideas from other artists. (Every artist does this anyway - just in different ways.) But that I find its aesthetics to be problematic on a pretty fundamental level.
The issue is that AI art is too "clean". If art is supposed to be a reflection of reality, it has to have at least some level of "grit" that gives it life, and if you rely solely on prompts, there is really no way to get that.
GPT has a similar sort of issue where a lot of people find its "tone" annoying to deal with, especially in work contexts. It's like talking to one of those people who seem eager to please you but don't bother getting the details right - you can't shake this feeling that behind your back, it's probably doing something against you, or probably nothing. (Which it is, to be fair. AI is mining your data and spends most of its time not caring about people like you.)
So while AI is a great tool for propaganda (where they don't want you to know most things) and people who lack critical thinking skills, for most people it kind of just kind instills this anxiety of "what is it hiding?" in them. That is actually the correct response to the technology as it stands now - at least until they can get things like attribution and sourcing in working order...which is going to a while, either way.
So at the end the day, humans are still necessary. Even if you start with a prompt, it's just a template that you start with, and you need the human hand to instill that "grit" - aka. reality - into the mix. A lot of "AI artists" often get tired of re-prompting things over and over then just change things manually after reaching a certain point in frustration. But that's the "grit" people are looking for, too - even in traditional art, things that are "too clean" gets forgotten very quickly because there's nothing there to grasp onto.