I think it’s most reasonable to compare AI use in the production of art to something like a Camera Lucida or photography itself as an art, because there are many levels of which AI could be involved in the production of art.

Is it reasonable to exclude such in a situation like an exhibition/contest of drawing skill? Yes, absolutely.

Is it reasonable to exclude them in other situations, like a general furry space where you’re allowing non-artist commissioners to upload art they had no involvement in other than money and prompting? No.

I believe that the fandom is better off for more of its members being able to express themselves and their ideas visually. Some people hold the view that a non-artist should have to pay an artist or become one in order to realize their characters and ideas. I think being discriminatory about what tools people are allowed to pick up should they wish to become an artist is not fair.

One last angle that I really wish wasn’t a thing, but I feel I have to bring up: 3D art using existing models and AI art are among the last-ditch pressure reliefs to facilitate visual expression of ideas that are unpopular. No artist should have to draw subject matter they don’t want to, but many are bullied out of drawing things like feral or feral/anthro art even though they might identify with or want to serve those interests. While in an ideal world that might be partially compensated for by some of the braver members of the fandom learning how to draw/paint/etc for themselves in order to fill those niches, it isn’t enough. Intersectional discrimination against those who choose to learn how to use AI tools to create art has a particularly disproportionate impact on unpopular demographics within the fandom.