AI as a Co-Creator: Ethical Boundaries and Philosophical Implications

While some people suggest that AI is a Co-Creator, I am inclined to believe that AI cannot be regarded as a co-creator but only as an auxiliary tool, because it cannot replace human creativity. Even if we receive help from AI, the final outcome is ultimately produced by humans, since all the data within artificial intelligence has been designed, selected, or infused by human beings. Although AI may appear to follow a process similar to human thinking, it merely imitates existing works rather than creating new ones. AI can produce outputs that appear skillful enough to communicate with viewers, but without consciousness, it cannot be considered an artist.

Art is an activity that expresses the emotions and experiences that humans undergo, not a mere technological combination of patterns. However, AI lacks the essential human experiences—memory, pain, growth, or relationships—that form the basis of genuine artistic expression. Therefore, the results produced by AI are difficult to view as true creations; they are simply reconfigurations of data patterns rather than authentic expressions.

For example, a “work” is defined as a creation that expresses human thoughts or emotions, and legally, only a human being can be recognized as an author. In 2015, Google’s DeepDream raised debates about whether AI could create artistic works. DeepDream was trained by presenting millions of images to a neural network consisting of 10 to 30 layers of artificial neurons, gradually adjusting its parameters so it could distinguish among various

images. When given a random picture, the network analyzes and amplifies specific layers to highlight certain features, producing an image that resembles a particular artistic style. However, the style created through this method is not the result of genuine artistic creation but merely a reproduction of specific paintings. When we examine the images produced by DeepDream, we can clearly see that they imitate Vincent van Gogh’s style without originality. This example illustrates why AI cannot be regarded as a co-creator.

Another limitation is AI’s inability to effectively handle unpredictable or unprecedented problems, since it operates only within the scope of learned data. From my personal experience, I once received a school assignment to draw a moment that impressed me. I asked AI for help, but it could not provide an answer. Eventually, I had to recall my own unconscious memory of being scolded by my parents and interpret it creatively. Through this experience, I realized that situations requiring personal, lived experience must be solved by human thought, not by AI. I also realized that AI cannot effectively deal with unprecedented problems because it does not truly understand my experiences.

Moreover, AI cannot explain its purpose or take responsibility for its output, so it cannot be considered a political or ethical agent. This lack of responsibility clearly demonstrates that AI cannot be acknowledged as a co-creator like humans. Artistic works gain meaning through human intention and message, not through simple visual or auditory patterns. However, AI’s outputs contain no inherent intention, so humans must ultimately assign meaning to them. The fact that AI does not produce meaning on its own shows that AI functions more as an auxiliary tool than as a co-creator.

Throughout my experiences, my beliefs have been strengthened: AI cannot be considered a co-creator because it lacks human creative subjectivity, such as emotion, intention, and self-awareness. Although AI generates results, humans decide which inputs to provide, which outputs to select, and how to refine the final work. Consequently, humans determine the direction and identity of the artwork, while AI merely assists in the process.

To conclude, although AI has significant value as an artistic tool, it lacks the core attributes of a creator—emotion, experience, responsibility, and intent. Therefore, the evidence supporting AI as a co-creator is insufficient, and the true subject of creation remains human.