[SetTheorist]

There is no general rule that something created by an X is therefore an X. (I have difficulty in even understanding the state of mind that would assert such a claim.)

My printer prints out documents. Those documents are not printers.

My cat produces hair-balls on the carpet. Those hairballs are not cats.

A human creating an artifact does not make that artifact a human.

[zozbot234]

But that's not the argument GP made. They said that there's nothing at all that's human about art or such things, which is a bit like saying that a cat's hairballs don't have something vaguely cat-like about them, merely because a hairball isn't an actual cat.

[anonymars]

So presumably what you are saying is something along the lines of, "A human creating an artifact does make that artifact human", i.e. "A human creating an artifact does make that artifact a human artifact."

But does that narrow facet have a bearing on the topic of "AI rights" / morality of AI use?

Is it immoral to drive a car or use a toaster? Or to later recycle (destroy) them?