Mmhh no, sorry.

Your argument hinges on interpreting "art" as encompassing anything that involves creativity and skill, even if mediated by AI. However, there are several points of contention that challenge this assertion:

1. Creativity and Intent: Traditional art involves direct human creativity, where the artist uses their skills and imagination to create something unique. When an AI generates an image, it relies on pre-existing data and algorithms designed by others. While the human operator may guide the AI's output through prompts and refinements, the creative process is more indirect. The AI itself does not possess creativity or intent—qualities many argue are central to the nature of art. The role of the human in AI art is more curatorial or editorial rather than generative in the traditional sense.

2. Skill Level and Artistic Process: The skills involved in creating traditional art (e.g., painting, sculpting) are different from those required to guide AI-generated art. Traditional artists often spend years honing their craft, mastering techniques, and developing a personal style. Working with AI, on the other hand, is more about understanding how to use a tool to get a desired result. While this requires knowledge and practice, it is not the same as developing the manual skillset of an artist. Thus, some argue that the process of creating with AI lacks the hands-on craftsmanship that has historically been associated with the production of art.

3. Human Expression and Emotion: Art has long been considered a medium for expressing human emotions, experiences, and perspectives. When a human creates art, they imbue it with their personal experiences and emotions, making the artwork a unique reflection of the artist's inner world. AI-generated art, however, lacks this personal touch. While the human operator can influence the output to a degree, the AI itself does not understand or feel emotions. Therefore, critics of AI-generated art argue that it lacks the depth of human expression found in traditional artworks.

4. Originality and Authorship: A key aspect of art is originality—creating something new and unique. AI generates images based on existing data, meaning it draws from a vast pool of human-created works to produce something new. This raises questions about the originality of AI-generated art. Is the artwork truly "original," or is it a derivative of the data it was trained on? Additionally, authorship becomes ambiguous in AI art. Who is the artist—the AI or the person who gave it instructions? Traditional art has a clear and direct link between the creator and the artwork, while AI complicates this relationship.

5. Definition of Art: The definition you provided describes art as the "expression or application of human creative skill and imagination." While AI art involves human interaction, the core creative process is performed by the AI, which does not have imagination or creativity in the human sense. Thus, one could argue that AI-generated works do not fully align with this definition because they lack direct human creation and imaginative effort.

In summary, while AI-generated images can certainly be aesthetically pleasing and can be appreciated as a form of visual expression, there is a valid argument that they do not constitute "art" in the traditional sense. Traditional art involves a direct, personal engagement with the medium and a unique expression of the artist's emotions and perspective, elements that are arguably lacking in AI-generated works.