I mostly disagree, though the future may prove me wrong. What I think differentiates photography from other art forms, in this case, is that photography necessitates real world context in a way that other art forms don’t.

Wedding photography is probably the best example of this - I don’t think most people can imagine a world where AI generated art would be sufficient to replace a wedding photographer who’s actually present at a real wedding, because the real world context of the wedding is what makes those photos significant, not just the quality of the photography itself. This is true of photography in general - people tend to care about photography the most when it connects to their reality. Contrast this with, say, a drawing: most people expect that a wedding photo will be of a real moment that actually occurred at their wedding, but people purchasing a drawing of their wedding wouldn’t necessarily have the same expectation, and care more about the end result than the process or context of its creation.

Now, obviously this only applies to certain types of photography. I think things like stock photography are likely to go completely extinct in the near future. But photography as an art form will hold its value in a very different way from other art forms, imo