As someone who gave hundreds of talks and wrote at least hundreds of articles etc. over the years, I basically agree. Some I look back on as being particular insightful or clever. But you pretty much have to mostly crank at least to a minimum standard. And, yes, there's a lot of reuse in various ways.
I've even had this discussion with people in at least adjacent roles to mine. We could put together ten very serviceable conference submittals tomorrow that we could spend a week turning into very competent conference presentations within a week. They wouldn't be brilliant but they'd be "good" relative to the norm. It's just one of the things we can crank out like we crank out blogs/columns.
Depends of course on the field and the conference tier. I doubt you could write an accepted paper for ICLR/ICML/NeurIPS/CVPR/ICCV in a week from scratch. These typically involve writing code, doing experiments, evaluating on benchmarks and obtaining good, if not state of the art, scores.
Typically this does involve 4-6 months of work even in high-output labs. It just involves many iterations, polishing the text and figures to "look like" an accepted paper by gestalt etc.
I wasn't trying to imply there's no work or effort needed. I'm more saying that there's a lot of learnable, repetitive parts and if you get them right, your output can have a consistent good quality but nothing groundbreaking. Chipping away at problems, permuting the assumptions and tasks, throwing in the latest hot new method and combining it with another method etc. It isn't something that anyone could do, but it doesn't rely on big eureka moments or flashes of deep insight that one might romantically expect.
Yes, I'm not trying to disparage it too much, it's just the reality of the job. But I found that even junior PhD students can have a romantic illusion that real scientists just spend their time musing and thinking and sometimes they have a flash of insight which they then enthusiastically share with the others. But the more mundane reality is that papers are projects with their own life cycle. You have to be on time, you have to cater to where "the discourse" is right now, the metagame. But to be fast, you need a process, a formula. It's sales. Everything can be approached from a sales and marketing mentality and it tends to bring success to a scary degree. Some apply similar tools in their romantic lives too, where optimizing your dating profile is just the start. I tend to think this is not the real path to something fulfilling, but pursuing this question veers into religious territory.