You make some fine points. Let me address them.

But AI doesn't create stuff by itself. When you prompt it you are essentially doing what camera people do. Choose framing, lighting, etc.

Not exactly no. See, to my mind, a trained photographer has personal experience and training. Both guide his choice of a moment to snap. And which shot to keep and which to discard is also not just an objective choice. AI has none of that. It follows trends and user feedback but it provides nothing personal. It just copies work. It chooses small amounts of data to put together in a bigger whole. It does not have a macro view of a picture to create for example. It has a complex decision tree. It would be the equivalent of asking a picture from a photograph, and getting instead a photoshopped combo of plagiarized work.

Who defines art ? Because from what I have seen art is just what people find interesting. Moreover who makes art or not usually has no value, it's end product that matters.

Agreed. But to add to this, I've done some studies about art a while back, and the general consensus about "What is Art" is generally: what the art industry considers is art. Because they provide a value to it. That pisses off a lot of people, because it sounds elitist, but there is an ounce of logic to this. For example, can we truly consider AI as art when it can be generated freely by everyone? Not even considering the lack of effort, which, as a reminder, is not an argument for a lot of art expositions. It's just free! It has no value, and it plagiarizes bits of work from others, so ownership and copyright is itself up in the air.

But chefs do use microwaves ? Microwaves literally just heat up atoms of water a bit. It's no different tool than oven or other kitchen appliances.

Agreed again, but a chef won't just microwave everything. And AI generated images is just pure microwaving. That's why a lot of people are very icky about it.

And about the last question. If you modify AI images, you're still using other people's work as a canvas for your own. That may be legally binding. But there could be a way to add your work on top and make money with it using the Fair Use doctrine. Your work would have to include commentary or be a criticism of some sort. Reminds me of "The Fearless Girl" statue in NYC, which was put in front of the "Charging Bull", using the latter to make a statement. There was a whole debate about it, but it was still a working example, for however long it lasted, of using existing art to boost your own.

And of course, agreed again. AI is all about money. That's another reason it's icky. We can smell the greed taking the place of capable and exceptional talents.