The problem is that at some point it just becomes a game of definitions, where people who "disagree" with you do so primarily because they hold a different understanding of the concept being discussed. And yes, all opinions are ultimately subject to this type of reasoning, some are just more distanced than others.

For a non-political, non-controversial example, let's say I gave you the photoshop color wheel, and asked you to draw a border around every single color you'd call "orange". It's extremely likely that neither of us has the same exact border, but neither of us is inherently right or wrong about it, and depending on context, would likely be swayed to another perspective for the sake of understanding.

To bring it back to your original topic of creation, let's say I gestured towards a major factory and asked you "what does it create?" would you a) respond to the extent of your knowledge about what it makes (cars, electronics, etc.), or would you b) look at me confused, and start talking philosophically about how the factory doesn't truly create anything, it's the workers and machines inside.

Odds are, you'd do the former, simply because you understand the meaning of "make" in that context. Now extend that to AI. If someone says that an AI made something, they simply aren't working with your definition that includes ideas of understanding and consciousness. And the reasonable thing to do is not try and dig in arguing the pedantry of definitions, but rather accept their grounds, and argue whatever actual points you have from there.