I have listened to and read a number of articles on AI and photography and is it art. How some are heralding this as some falsifier of hardwork and talent. Social media reported that the Sony prize winner handed back their award because it had been artificially generated, but had not been spotted by the judges. The Royal Photography Society (RPS) and other Photographic Networks are discussing implications. I personally think the same conversations were had with painting and photography, film to digital. To me this is evolution of a tools that can be used for creativity.
If it's fast and efficent, saves money for businesses and individuals, then it will be used. And I have seen some amazing images created. It can be used by itself or in collaboration with other art, should it be classed as photography. A speaker in a talk on RPS and members broached this subject a mix of openess and apprehension. With the conclusion of photography "recording light, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film."(google search definition) and the definition also given at the RPS talk.
So does this change if I am now printing these AI generated and hybrid images on photographic paper. What is the difference between printing from a digital negative to a rayographs or a cynotype. All use light, as part of the process.
I think that there will be a new catergory for AI imagery, I don't think it is competing with photography. I do wonder if it falls under the same snobbery that is was only the few that could afford or use materials for people to consume.