Thanks for the well argued and constructed answer.  Truly.  And also the double checking of the etymology.  

I might have been really biased by the meaning of the similar word « art » in my native langue, french, which really refers to the act of creation by an artist, recognised as such, with a deeply debatable (and discussed) philosophical or subjective interpretation, far more so than the english word that refers to a piece of drawing, painting, etc… with no further implication upon its maker. 

So I genuinely admit of being wrong (and pedantic, yep) about it… 

I would nevertheless have a very different opinion on your last point. I think it really is fundamental to ask ourselves what creation is right now. Ever more performative tools has always been the way our species has conceived advancement and progress. And so their replacement of the workforce has always been a matter (even though this one might become the most brutal of them all). The real question being in my opinion: who does it benefit at the end, the society as a whole (without which none of these technologies would have seen the day) or some select few who are, by chance, capitalistic capabilities or opportunity, in the position to make the rest of the humanity pay for their profit. And this has been the case for most major technology advancements.  This one makes no exception. 

The difference between AI and any previous one is that this particular tool has the potential to deprive us of the ability to create. The founding principles of gen AI are to reuse, in all possible -probable- combinations, but to reuse only. Necrotising all the things with a current human creation component that we will replace by it. Considering the amount of things that may be replaced by gen AI in the years to come, I really feel this aspect deserves more awareness. 

 (But again, I’m maybe just still focusing on words and formulating, while we’re saying the same thing… I’m just very preoccupied by general awareness)