I encourage you to do an experiment. Get two friends to learn a subject -- one spends 20 hours on it, actually solving problems by hand. One reads AI answers to problems.

At the end of those twenty hours, quiz them. Get them to solve a problem. Who do you think will do better?

Learning happens when the brain struggles with problems. Trying to shortcut that only prevents learning.

Both sides of this are about exploration. Compare with collage: it's a different thing. It's not painting or drawing. It's fast, and it's art, and it depends on and reuses other people's painting and drawing. It's not strictly superior.

>Being able to rapidly prototype concepts might help people get good at it,

Again, it's hard to quantify or validate. One thing I will say is that people can often misinterpret the things that make a certain piece of art work. It's often the little details, or even the absence of detail that make or break it. This is the sort of stuff that requires you to train your eye to notice.

For example, Da Vinci is often heralded as a master of the human form and proportions (the Vitruvian man). But many of his later works often eschewed realistic proportions, with his figures often being 10-11 heads tall. This is a subtle detail that influences how a piece feels, and yet most people would completely miss it!