Greetings, @shadow346 !
I disagree, still I fully understand your opinion. Actually is a common reaction from established organizations of artists. This controversy might come from fear that AI will patronize the "new art", and can be fully justified.
Maybe a bit more words will manage to change your view... if "handmade" is the term to define original art creation, then we will need to exclude many well established forms of art - from photography, film industry, some parts of electronic music, etc... But if we define original art as "human made", then things become more foggy... Art generated by AI are drawings coming from an neural network trained to link notions described in a formal description language to a picture that can be considered "beautiful" by a human mind. In the training phase tones of pictures are used, together with a description of each image. feeding this, is a human act. Once trained, the AI algorithm must be executed with a new input set of data - some random numbers (seed) and a descriptive text, which is also "human made". The quality of this data is key for a creative result. Then, the AI can generate an infinite number of different output. All this must be curated, descriptive text must be adapted, all again a "human touch".
In the past, being an artist required a lot of skills - with the help of computers and new technology (e.g. paint mixing machines) this gets out of the top priority, and focus moves on creativity. Have a look at masterpieces created by Piet Mondrian in his second half period (he invented Neoplasticism). At that time it was called "new art". Or let's have a look at Barnett Newman who is regarded as one of the major figures of Abstract Expressionism. Also "new art".
Should we stop inventing in art?
I say no!