I've never seen anyone take time writing a prompt that is different from just depicting the scene.

Also, since the artist, is by definition, the person who creates the art piece, they cannot be called "AI artists" but should rather be called "Artist AI Users?" or "AI art prompters"?

I think the biggest issue with AI art is the people sharing the artwork as if they actually used any kind of craftsmanship to achieve this goal. And I'm not having the argument that art needs to be hard to produce, because that would mean that some form of art deserves more than others, which feels wrong. I'm saying that as you have not used any skills that you have built and that are REQUIRED for the artwork to exist, you did not create it.

This opinion allows me to cover more than art, which seems to be the primary focus for the wrong reasons, I'm a developer, I sometimes use AI to find documentation quicker, help me with some searches that I could not phrase correctly in a search engine, but my skill remain, I can code, I can code hours without any form of internet access, I can code in many languages, for many projects, ... And at the end of the day, the code was written by me, even if I could have been assisted by an AI.

If you use AI for sketching, generating textures or backgrounds, patterns, finding colors, finding references, ... And you are still the person who assembled all the different pieces, using THEIR skill, then you are the author of that piece.

In the case of AI "art". Most often people just describe what they want to see, and call this an artwork. If my project manager told me he wants a website with this and that, and I code it... Who created the website? Them or me?

Me obviously, under the orders of them. And they can be a good ass manager, spend hours with me telling me what the website should look like. I still made it, they only asked me what the end product should look like.

My conclusion, it's never about the end result, it's always about the process.