Slop.

It's the fascist's favorite trick: a false dichotomy.

He presents a straw man version of an argument: "AI is bad because it's machine-made art."

Then he presents a counterpoint that is also stuffed with old hay: "a camera is a machine, therefore photographers are also making 'machine art'."

The final point is to trick you into accepting these premises and the nonsense conclusion drawn by the comparison: "photography and 'prompt engineering' are equally valid forms of artistic expression that require comparable levels of skill to perform."

The secret to avoiding this trap is realizing that the source is a fucking Nazi, and not trusting any part of the "argument." AI art has many downsides worth discussing, even and especially among enthusiasts for it: hallucinations, energy costs, environmental damage, economic damage, job loss, devaluing of content and skills, and on and on. All artists and creatives use tools of some kind. The degree of practice and skill varies considerably between mediums.

It's telling (of what a moron chudtoss is) that they can't actually connect the dots on various forms of visual expression. Photography and oil painting, for example, have sometimes similar end goals (a picture of something) but different skill sets and talents are needed by each to achieve good results. However, common ideas like composition, framing, lighting, and color balance will be shared across both. A multidisciplinary artist would learn and develops as an artist across all their mediums as these shared skills grow.

Prompt engineering shares very little with making visual art. You might develop the language needed to cheat off other artist's homework better, but you aren't learning what makes art work. As a comic "artist" you might expect him to have some sympathy or understanding of these things. That he doesn't is evidence that either: he knows and hides it to appeal to his chud audience, or else he's a shit artist with no professionalism or desire to grow. Both seem likely to me.