As any task becomes automated by machines, the relationship between operator and machine changes. For example, sewing clothes once had to be done entirely manually, then more effectively with mechanical sewing machines, and now one person can oversee a massive factory machine mass producing items of clothing. I don’t think these new advancements in cameras are much different than that, though they may feel that way since photography is generally considered a creative act. Many of the boring or difficult parts of photography (like snapping the picture at just the right moment or editing a face to look more beautiful) can now be done with machine learning, which frees up people to do more of the interesting stuff, like choosing what to point the camera at. Even if this itself becomes automated (as in some ways it has), then the “art” just shifts to be something different, like choosing an image from a set, or deciding how to print and display a photo. The person responsible is still the author of the work, but what that means can vary depending on what exactly they did. This is nothing new, either. Even without ML, some photos are carefully arranged and lit in a studio by the photographer, while others are taken candidly “in the field.” Both are artwork, but the art-making act is different. So if a person creates a photograph by setting a smart camera in a certain location and waiting for it to snap a picture, then that decision itself is their art, and that’s how audiences will think about it. It doesn’t make them less of an author, and I don’t think it radically changes the notion of a “camera” either.