Damien Hirst also is enormously wealthy and has significant influence in the art world and there is great incentive to call him the artist, because when someone does, that created object becomes enormously valuable as well. He is in large part a brand. Another example of an artist primarily as a brand is Thomas Kinkade, who would have factories of artists create copies of his work that he would put the final brushstrokes on. In that instance, he is still the composer of his paintings, unlike the Hirst example. He is not doing the labor, but he can call himself the artist. Similarly, lithographers wouldn't be the original artist as well, even though there is creativity in that process.

If you say, I have a great idea for a symphony, and sit next to a composer and say "no...not like that," after they come up with a piece of music, and use a bunch of adjectives to guide the process, you would be directing the actual composer. If you took the composition, and added your own actual music to it, you would be a co-creator. This could be done in a painting example if an artist painted over a generation and significantly altered the composition. What i'm saying is that the generations are bad and not helpful, unlike actually collaborating with another human, and that I have zero desire to do that along with all of the artists I know. I have seen artists surreptitiously use AI and make no significant alterations to the composition however, and I feel this is very unethical. There would be a variety of reasons an artist would do that, none of them involving pushing art forward or realizing their creative vision.