> It feels very nitpicky to police the use of the word create.
Conversely, I feel the word “police” is overused in these contexts. I’m not stopping (or attempting to stop) their use of the word. Nor could I, I have no power to change their word usage. But words have meanings, and their overuse dilutes and makes communication more difficult. If someone uses a word multiple times in one short comment as part of their main thesis, I think it’s fair to reflect on if it’s being used correctly. That is, of course, a matter of interpretation and open to disagreement. That’s what I’m on HN for, to bounce ideas and develop my thinking.
> If GP hadn't willed it, the song wouldn't exist at all, it was only created due to their action.
Which is no different from a commission, which is why I used that word (again, meaning matters).
> If I write the lyrics for a song, I feel like that's a significant contribution in creating a musical piece.
The OP said “most of the lyrics are generated using chatgpt”. So most of the lyrics are created by an AI tool and most (if not all) of the music is created by another AI tool. Where is the person’s “significant contribution” in this scenario?
> If I made a detailed sketch for a table design and I hired someone to help correct any oversights and to build it
Except that doesn’t look to be at all what happened here. It looks more analogous to giving some vague verbal instructions at different stages of the process. Again, no different from a client commissioning a work from an artist.
Crucially, your example does require learning a skill, which the OP admittedly didn’t. Making a detailed sketch for a table design requires that you learn how it’s done. In this case, it would be somewhat analogous to the OP having written musical notation to generate the song, which is also a skill.
But here, no skill was used or pursued.
Your hypotheticals are valid in general. But I’m not discussing hypotheticals in the aggregate, every analogy I made was about this specific case.