Nothing absurd about that. What do you think an "Executive producer" is? A "Director" ? Does Peter Jackson get credit for creating the Lord of the Rings Trilogy films? Christopher Nolan for his films? But did he make them ? No, it was the collective effort of thousands of individuals all working under their direction.

Just like if somebody creates software today, and the end result is generated by the collective effort of thousands of agents, the "Director" still gets credit.

I think in that case it's fair to say you created the painting with the artist, even if the artist should get majority credit. I don't like the analogy though, to me it feels more like you're a project manager directing a team of genius but single minded interns.

I just read through a couple of your posts that weren't dead or buried, and it seems like you're pretty anti-AI. You should really start to have an open mind towards it. It's going to be the future (if it isn't already), and as you continue to get older, you're going to really wish you spent your time right now learning and embracing the technology instead of being so against it. A lot of the skills and things that you're holding on to right now might not be relevant by then, but you'll be at a disadvantage from not keeping up with the industry and need to play catch-up.

You know how many pieces of art Damien Hurst creates himself Vs his studio assistants creating them under his direction?

For example, of his 1500 spot paintings, he only actually made 5 of them.

It's not uncommon at all for artists to work this way.

There have been plenty of workshops where artists hire assistant painters while maintaining authorship over the works themselves, from Rembrandt to Warhol to Hirst.

no, because there is another human involved.

llms are not human.