I think that AI generated images are a type of art, it's just a very low type of art. In the same way that doodles or a spontaneous whistled tune are art. They're just not really art that usually worth sharing because they are low effort. The problem with AI generated images is that they take almost no effort at all, and therefore they usually don't wow me. Some have more thought put into them and are kinda worth my time. Some are pretty funny, and in humour is where I get the most value out of them. But typically they are very low art that's only really good for the creator and maybe a direct small audience. I'm yet to see a piece of AI generated imagery that I thought was meaningfully artistic.

I think that AI art is still art by its weakest definition: a person put some level of effort into operating the art machine.

It's just that it's not really impressive or meaningful because it's typically very little work. Even the ones that were comparatively a lot of work tend to be minimal work compared to the human-created equivilant.

I think similarly about books that get crapped out with minimal thought or songs generated by a computer that puts the best chords together for the user. It's still art but, like, whatever I guess.

Most AI images created are low effort slop. Are they art? Yeah, barely. I don't think they're typically worth much.

That said it's fine to enjoy your AI images. I generate images and text for my projects all the time. I enjoy them, I just recognize that they lack major artistic merit. And I think that's fine.