I'm sorry to say but I disagree, and the reason why in my eyes your argument is invalid is actually one of your own arguments.
Nowadays every thing is art no? A stripe of pencil on a piece of paper? You don't need skills for that. Being against ai doesn't take the opportunity to be an artist away from the ones who don't want to, or can't? ( you kind of cannot not)
And even then art is a skill, like so many other things. What your saying is like that Ready-to-eat meals are a good substitute for fresh made food, no even worse that artificial food is as good for society as food with no artificial ingredients.
Generative art is not as worthwhile as art made by living beings. Art itself is something that expresses emotion, thought or something else, but it's always something that gives art a life. Even if it's a painting about dead, it has a life because it shows that it was made by someone alive.
Artificial intelligence does not share these traits with us, or other living creatures. It can imitate them yes, but it can not experience them. The question is if ai will ever be able to.
Ai is cruel towards artist and writers. Not because ai wants to be, it can't be, at least not yet as far as we know. Ai imitates and steals from what already exist.
So yes there are ethical ways to argue that Ai should be opposed.
If Ai ever gains conscious and emotions we shouldn't use Ai either, because then it would be a sort of slavery. Forcing something that is alive to do your will.
Ai isn't ethical and it will never be.
generative art is just as worthwhile as any other form of art, and the idea that it should be treated as anything less, anything more limited in what it's acceptable to use it for, is deeply ableist. if you treat it as such, you are participating in bigotry
art is not defined by tools or methods. it's about finding a way to communicate or express something, whatever form that takes