Something not yet mentioned is that as the tools become more and more powerful, as they can assume more and more of the "work" of creation, the creation becomes easier. More and more people can do it. It gets "commonized."

Some of the attraction of photography is that is is an opportunity to learn to do something that few other people can do (or take the time to learn to do). How are going to feel about photography and all of the time and effort you have devoted to learning how, when it gets to the point that everyone else can suddenly do the same thing without all the effort and work? Amateur radio operators went through the same quandary when the rules were changed to reduce, then eliminate the requirement to know that mode of communication. The discipline survived, the hobby survived, but there was great heartburn among older hams who did have to learn it.
i
I am interested to know a little more about the motivation of those who are vocal advocates of the new technology. Is it to make photography more accessible to those with less or little aptitude for it? Is it to enable you to achieve something that you have not been able to learn how to do? Are you unable to understand how to achieve proper exposure, but still want to do photography? Is it just the idea of being able to play around with something new? Is it something else? Are you just lazy, but still want to make pictures?

Because art has always been associated with skill. If you remove the need for the skill, is it still art, or just nice pictures?

It's the same question that was raised a few years ago when the norm became that everyone who played in the recital or entered a contest got a trophy.

It's the same flawed judgement that tells kids "the big lie:", "You can be anything you want to be." (You can't be an astronaut if the height limit is 5'11'' and you are already 6'1" in high school. You can't be a horse racing jockey, either.)

If art is universal, is it still art?

Art is associated with skill. Actually, that's more 'no' than 'yes' to that assertation. People concerned about barriers to entry, those people are concerned about 'skill', sometimes just the money needed to cross that barrier. Everyone else is just concerned about whether they like the art or not. Everyone else -- the great unwashed masses.

The flip side of Art is associated with skill is probably the Dunning-Kruger effect. If we step away from art to trade crafts, I can accept the need for minimum-level skills, say to charge money as a 'qualified professional'. But, to just create 'art' your own personal fun of it, why or when has 'skill' or 'technical knowledge' ever stopped anyone but the complainers? Museums are filled with art from both the trained and the untrained, all with some level of 'skill' as needed to yield those results. The individual decides what appeals to them as an individual.

Imagine if 'skill' was a barrier to someone buying a D850? We wouldn't have Nikon as a for-profit company with that barrier of entry ...

Skill manifests in multiple ways. That is evident at school, where everyone has to create something. Obviously, some do a more skillful job than others, but they all DO something.

Creating art requires both ideation and execution. The bottom of the scale of ideation is stealing or copying. The bottom of the scale of execution is more complicated. Dale Chihuly hasn't actually created any glass with his own hands in a long time. Is the glass from his studio still his? I guess maybe so. Could it exist without him? Good question. Lots of folks have been working very clisely with him for a long time. I'm betting that most of the time, they know exactly what to do brfore he rven tells them. Is what comes out art? I'm not 100% sure, but lots of people including us, really like it.

I think maybe there are two kinds of art. Theres the art that someone would buy, and there's the art that no one would buy.

Because art has always been associated with skill. If you remove the need for the skill, is it still art, or just nice pictures?

It's the same question that was raised a few years ago when the norm became that everyone who played in the recital or entered a contest got a trophy.

It's the same flawed judgement that tells kids "the big lie:", "You can be anything you want to be." (You can't be an astronaut if the height limit is 5'11'' and you are already 6'1" in high school. You can't be a horse racing jockey, either.)

If art is universal, is it still art?

If they are just nice pictures, are you still OK with that?