Fuck AI

Sure, digital artists are making their art. But if they are using procedural elements, which are common in many 3d modeling and texturing softwares (to be clear, not powered by AI) I would argue they didn't really "make" that art, it was generated for them. If they add those generated elements to a piece, i would say they created the art piece as a whole, but they didn't create the generated part. If they are manually placing pieces, shaping models, and painting textures, then I still would consider them having created art.

I think where to draw the line is pretty clear. Did you do more than ask something/someone to make an art piece for you? Then you did art. Say you get an image generated for you. You didn't create it. If you then make meaningful changes to it (If you want to know my definition of meaningful change, just check the legal definition of transformative changes to media, I pretty much align with what the courts have decided) I would argue that you made the art piece as a whole, but you still didn't make the generated part.

As for the paint can on a string, I would argue they still created it. They actively tossed the paint can, cut the holes for the paint to come out, etc. If instead they had a machine that poked the holes randomly and randomly picked a direction/force to use, I wouldn't say they made the work.

When it comes to editing a photo you took, I think that it still counts as you making the art, unless you are having someone/something edit the picture for you. In that case, it's as if you were the original artist, and the editor is the one having made the transformative changes, making the new output the art of the editor, while the original art is still yours.