There's a word for what you're doing there: equivocation.
> A director "makes" movies.
You clearly don't appreciate what that means. It's a deeply creative and involved process, not just waving a film into being with their flapping arms. Moreover, there are dozens to hundreds (or more!) people working as a team on everything from sets to cameras to post-production to ...
When we say a director "made" that movie, we don't mean that was the extent of the making, nor do we mean they did no heavy lifting themselves. Neither of those sentiments are true.
> A collage artist "makes" images
They do! You seem to be trying to equivocate their use of previous components to create a new expression directly with .. well .. not.
A more accurate analogy here between software development and the collage artist might be using libraries others have written in your projects from which you create something new.
Collage is not the same process or product as directing an LLM. Again, equivocation.
> A fisherman "makes" a catch.
Words have more than one meaning, but the meanings can be (and in this case, are) divergent. "Synonyms", they are called!
Literally equivocating, and entirely meaningless.
> Someone searching YouTube and clicking on a video "makes" a video.
Literally nobody says this, thinks this, or refers to the act in this way.
This is taking equivocation into "making up new meanings from whole cloth" territory.
> These are widely agreed upon definitions
No, they aren't. You're making an argument hoping it justifies your choices, but mostly just demonstrating you don't understand the words you are using.
> so it should not be
Your premise is rubbish, so there can be no "so...".
If you wish to use LLMs to spit out source code, that's your choice to make. How hard is it for you to just also own the fact that the act is not a creative one, and you are "making" in the same way that a customer delivering a set of requirements to a dev team is "making" software. There ought to be no shame in that if it isn't shameful.