I love debating, but I want debate to learn things, not to walk people into traps.

Obviously the woodworker is a person. And you would be on a team that has woodworking as part of their skillset.

But the way you set up your reductio-ad-absurdum it can be read as implying the AI is a person too. O:-)

You know what, rather than just going for a flip rhetorical takedown, what if we took that implication seriously for a second?

What if you did mean to argue that (the) AI is a proto-person. Say you argue that they deserve to be in the credits as a (junior?) member of the team. That'd be wild! A really interesting framing, which I haven't heard before.

Or the weaker version: Use said framing pro-forma as a (practical?) legal fiction. We already have rules on (C) attribution. It might be a useful framing to untangle some of the spaghetti.