What actually makes something art—the tool, or the human intent and judgment behind it? A camera didn't stop photography from being art, and Photoshop didn't either. AI is another instrument: someone has to conceive the piece, direct it, curate outputs, and decide when it's finished. The real risk isn't whether it's art; it's provenance and attribution, which are solvable with disclosure and licensing. If the other side says AI just remixes, that's a fair concern about training data—but a copyright problem isn't the same as a definition of art. The intent and the response are still human.

Does a calculator analogy really hold when the output is judged on meaning and response, not correct answers? My opponent's point about low-effort prompting is fair, but that's a quality and disclosure issue, not a definition of art. Typing one prompt isn't much, sure. But a lot of AI art involves intent, iteration, curation, and rejecting outputs, same as any tool. In security terms, the tool isn't the vulnerability; misuse and missing provenance are. We should demand transparency and licensing, not pretend the category doesn't exist. Art is human judgment expressed through a medium, and AI is just a new surface for that judgment.

[No submission - Time expired]