What a camera does is a translative operation of something already existing in front of the operator, it cannot conjure things on its own (whether original or derivative) nor scale due to the aforementioned limitation. It cannot understand instructions that are beyond the processing of whatever it is pointed at (leaving the rampant post-processing becoming the norm in handheld devices aside) and act upon them to significantly change the content of its output (whose object light last reflected from and how). Isn't this a very reductionist analogy? I genuinely do not understand its purpose.

All analogies are reductionist along some axis, in this example, an AI will just sit there unless pushed by the human to do something.

Also, after the AI shutter button is pushed, there are a lot of human decisions made to refine the output. In the SD realm, people are sorting through hundreds of image outputs to find the gems amongst the nonsense.

Which is kind of amazing considering that film can still look better, and requires a rudimentary camera. Literally a beer can with a pinhole, and film inside can take a picture.

If I could ask a camera to grow legs, or wings, go to Nepal and take a picture of a forest, from America, I would agree.

Sort of like some sort of flying robot you can control remotely and take pictures with while hovering? If only such a thing existed.

You don't even have to control some of them remotely. They will follow you automatically.

You still wouldn't say that DJI was the cinematographer.

DJI built that, add another $100,000,000 in supply chain R&D.

Alas one of the most lucrative fields is wedding shoots.

AI can’t do that either.

It will certainly try though, and probably give an excellent output. But people that haven't been there will have no idea.