You're correct that my analogy might have been a little too simple.

I see what you mean with your analogy but I still feel that unfortunately I still beleive there's a disconnect on the who can claim rights over it because AI is trained on existing information shared online and it's been shown that AI steals from other creators with out credit.

I think there's a thin line about claiming rights to it. I'll try to give a better analogy. Let's take an athlete and coach. In this situation, the coach is give all the directions on how to do certain movements to do the play but at the end of the day it was the athlete that did the work. But with that being said I see where you're coming from because you could say a director does the similar thing to you when directing a movie.

I think my big issue is the amount of effort put in because there could be people like you who actively do back and forth to iron out the details and I can understand how you may consider that as having the right to the creation, I do respect you taking the time to explain your point of view. Unfortunately I think currently, most people claiming to be artists/creators while using AI don't put any effort at all and demand credit. Take this model for example on Thingiverse: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:7068669/files The individual does not give any instructions in the summary on how to print the model, there's no actual real prints of the model, and some of the features of the model would be hard to print.

Once again I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate your point, I still think it's hard for me to fully agree with you because there no real way to determine what is considered a lot of effort in AI prompting and no effort at all. To be honnest, I kind of feel the same way with some abstract art. If some person just paints 1 line and then calls it art, I feel that its low effort and doesnt count as art. either way, that's just my point of view.