It’s equivalent to claiming that because I made the paint and my neighbor made the canvas that we’re the artists and not your dog or cat. 
More seriously, just having your fingerprint on the raw materials into doesn’t count by me. (as I’ll explain in a moment)
I don’t wish to dwell on the legal ramifications. But my own take on the philosophical aspect of what is art, is that there has to be some intent in the work to communicate something. And some people feel that the artist has to think of it as art as well, that’s a little more controversial and I could go either way. My definition is too broad for some and to narrow for others, and I’m not away of any universally accepted definition of art.
But by my own definition, if an AI makes it. and nobody didn’t edit it, filter it, contextual it, or otherwise put intent into it. Then it’s not art.
Even if the intent is so minimal as to be that the “artist” chose from two AI generated pieces and picked one to present to you as art. Subjectively that’s pretty shitty art though, if the artist is only willing to express a binary opinion between “Meh” and “Yah”. I failed to be moved. 
If a programmer makes some kind of deep learning, “AI”, or otherwise generative piece of software. It’s math. It’s a formula. It’s an algorithm. Some software is in itself art, but it usually isn’t. Rarely is the stuff I write art.
But to the original point. Just because someone made the tools to generate pretty pictures. Doesn’t mean the original programmer is expressing their own intent into those pictures. And I don’t think the guy that wrote my compiler thinks that I owe them credit.
