Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right now your actual argument is just really your opinion. You can avoid actually examining it closely by claiming logical fallacies, but again we're just talking about your opinion, you're not making a logical argument.
The colloquial definition of "creative" and "art" are not solely an opinion, it's a tangible thing you can explore and investigate if you're motivated to do so. The inability of LLMs to express creativity is also not an opinion. The differences between film directors and LLM prompters are also real things that we could discuss. But a meaningful discussion requires good faith, not dismissal to disingenuous argument.
Whatever definition you bring into scope will not resolve it because a colloquial definition only describes how a word is commonly used, and doesn't establish rule for every disputed case, which is what we have here.
Definitions are generally not normative, but even if we agreed on one, it would not exclude a works solely because of the tool used to produce it. But you are saying that every work produced using AI is illegitimate as art, regardless of its intention, composition, context, expressive content, or any other quality ordinarily associated with art.
What necessary property does accepted art possess that no AI-assisted work could possibly possess? Or to state it another way closer to my original question (which was not disengenuous), what additional human contribution makes photography or CGI art, and why couldn’t an AI-assisted process contain that contribution?
Until that property is identified, saying AI images cannot be art is largely just a stated conclusion.