If we go by the Adam Smith definition of wealth creation, as the combination of materials, labour, land, and technology in such a way as to capture a profit (excess above the cost of production),
That isn\’t, I think, quite the "Adam Smith" definition of wealth creation.
Firstly, he would use "land labour and capital" as the description of what must be combined. Secondly, he didn\’t equate wealth creation and profit in quite that manner. Certainly, making a profit by such a combination makes wealth for the person who receives the profits. But that isn\’t, really, at the heart of what Smith thought wealth creation was all about.
Rather, it\’s the division of labour, the specialisation that such division allows and the trade of the subsequent higher production is what creates "wealth".
Entrepreneurs, capitalists, struggling to make a profit, these might, perhaps, be thought of as the proximate cause of wealth creation in the Smithian universe, but the ultimate cause is the division of labour, specialisation and subsequent trade that such facilitate.
This different emphasis does make a difference though: it\’s possible to imagine an economy where wealth is indeed increasing and yet no profits are being made…..