For starters we don't have a way to measure quality objectively, and this is the case for art in general. If you were to develop an objective measure of beauty

For starters we don't have a way to measure quality objectively, and this is the case for art in general. If you were to develop an objective measure of beauty for example, visual art as a discipline would quickly turn into a science. At some level we know that's possible, we're all just brains in jars. But AFAIK we aren't doing science there yet. The science and engineering parts all have a measure of quality, sometimes that's a human rating, sometimes it's cross-entropy loss. There's nothing stopping someone from using the scientific method to investigate these things, but descriptively I haven't seen anyone, calling themselves a "prompt engineer/scientist", doing that yet. "I used these words, and I got this output which is nice" sounds like, "I tried using these brushes and I made this painting which is nice". I can agree with the painting being nice, but not that science was used to engineer a nice painting.