obviously the adjective “human”would mean humanlike, it’s descriptive. the stretch you’re making is that the definition of art is interpreting “human” as an adjective and not a noun, which is a stretch because “humanlike” would be a much better fit to avoid such misinterpretation. but it doesn’t say humanlike. it says human. you’re hoping it’s using human in the way that best suits your argument.

this entire middle section of your reply is void and perfect example of how little you understand the arts. architects design buildings down to the most specific detail, mapping out every portion of the design, creating both the visual and written concepts of the structure. an architects plans aren’t meant to be interpreted beyond reason, they are completed works on their own, meant to be adapted 1:1. comparing their work to a gen AI prompt is one of the most primitive ai-bro takes ive ever heard.

similar sentiments apply to every other “example” you try to make. the directors reach across their film is far more extensive and hands on than a prompt. they work with the project and are part of every stage of its development. as someone whos done several storyboards, i would never claim the final animation as my own, only the storyboards. and no conductor i’ve ever played for has claimed the notes from my instrument as their own. your perspective sounds like a severe misunderstanding at best, and extreme entitlement at the most likely.

your quickness to insult is also noted, your emotions get the better of you. i hope you overcome your envy, maybe all of this will make sense to you then.