Maybe they are, but in that case it's a frequent source of equivocation because people will conflate the process of their making with the result of some other process so as to proclaim themselves artists, musicians, programmers or whatever for writing something that they themselves wouldn't consider art or music unto itself in the first place, and having a machine generate something which they do consider to be art or music based on that.

> Did I make a piece of art if I created a file on a computer in photoshop and then printed it?

Funnily enough people don't usually have a problem with this question when it comes to driving. Your actions' effect on the propulsion of the car are ultimately indirect, and there are many systems which assist the person behind the wheel even when they are engaging directly with all their means of control, e.g. an engine, ABS, EPS, yet no one will immediately feel a need to wax philosophical about whether the driver is actually driving or not because of that. We recognize that in a car which requires a driver at all there is substantial ongoing involvement from the person behind the wheel in making the car go as desired and deciding what means available to apply in order to go about that, without whom there is at best no going anywhere at all, and that involvement is what driving is.

> If I can't drive (perhaps I never learned, or some flaw with my body doesn't let me), a taxi does enable some things I could never do before. I am, of course, not literally the one driving. But if I can get to the shop myself now, there is something there.

Which is not the thing in question. If AI tools have generated something you find beautiful or interesting, by all means enjoy that for what it is. If the taxi takes you to the store, by all means enjoy that.