Generative AI, Credit/Recognition, Anthropocentrism, Egoism

This is just a shower thought tier idea rather than profound philosophical analysis.

Why do many of the anti-genAI arguments and stances revolve around recognition and consent? Everything in this universe is a collaboration, we all contribute to everything in some fashion, yet I do not thank you and you do not thank me for our day to day lives. Take "Ai art is disgusting and immortal because someone/something else is profiting off the work of others" or a similar idea "AI art is disgusting because there is no acknowledgement or credit given to the person whose training data contributed significantly to the output of the AI"

What I'm about to say next isn't original, but I haven't engaged with others in this thought.

How much individual credit does one deserve for a produced work? Suppose I locked you in a room all by yourself and there were no other people in that room, but I supplied you with tools and media, and left you to fully compose a piece of media "by yourself". You finish your media then slap "by [name]" on the front or back of it. I feel like that's how a lot of work is done today essentially. You compose a piece, you do research. You write a love letter, and if no one else contributed to your work, you just slap your name on it and call it yours. There is no credit given to those who made the tools, there's no credit for the media which supplied your inspiration, even though it's obviously true that we wouldn't have Dragonball without superman, or that there would be no playboy without the camera. I don't really see the creators of Superman on the cover of a dbz manga though, I just see Akira toriyama. You get my point.

When it comes to AI art, there is severe dissatisfaction with the morality of how to credit others work in the final result of an AI image. I don't understand why these arguments can't be flipped onto the works of artists who compose their work "independently"

As a side tangent I think nobody is trying to put responsibility on the machine, but rather people who use genAI. Many antagonists desire more that users of gen AI involve something like consent or credit or permission.

There is an overwhelming amount of similar rhetoric in these spaces, but if I simply drew an astounding piece that showcased Goku and Superman engaging in extremely homosexual frolicking, would you use similar narratives and feel similar emotions and demand that I acknowledge the creators of those IPs. In my drawing, or am I allowed to post that on my social pages with my name signature on it?

I will admit, although I haven't been trying to be obscure in the first place, I haven't delved deeply into this type of rhetoric that antis use to push their "anti" agenda. I simply noticed that is very popular, despite seeming easy to deflect. I suppose it caught on because it's easy to load on emotionally or with a sense of superior morality?

How credit does humanity itself deserve for human art? Should we not give thanks or credit to the particles that compose our world? Do the fish not deserve credit for the genetic data and skeletal scaffolding that composes us? Sure, they didnt have any intentions of human art, but when an AI piece of media is generated, how much intention did the proposed abscent people who should receive credit have in the production of the AI image?