I think art is as much in the eye of the viewer as it is the maker. You'll never convince me that Jackson Pollock was an artist, I simply don't see the art in his work, but you may have a life changing emotional experience viewing it. My opinion doesn't devalue your experience any more than your experience devalues mine.

Art doesn't need the intention to create art in order to be art. Everything is "Art." From the beauty of the Empire State Building to the most mundane office building, all buildings fall under the category of art known as architecture. The same way that McDonalds technically falls under the category of the culinary arts.

Your argument that image generators are okay because you don't intend to make art is like arguing that you don't want to wear fashion and then you buy your clothes on Temu. From the most ridiculous runway outfit to that t-shirt you got at Walmart, all clothes are fashion, but that's not the issue. The issue would be that you bought fast fashion - an industry built entirely on horrible working conditions and poor wages that is an ecological nightmare. And this is the issue with these generators: they sell you a product made using stolen work (wage theft basically) that uses more electricity than every renewable energy resource on the planet.

The issue isn't the tech. It's the companies making the tech and the ethics involved. Though there's an entire other discussion to be had about the people who call themselves artists because they generate images, but that's not relevant here.

Depends entirely on your definition of art.

To me art is playing with your senses. A painting plays with your sight. Music plays with your hearing. Statues play with your touch. Dancing plays with your sense of balance and proprioception. ...

So anything that does that, like a nice sunset, is art to me.