From novels and screenplays to music and even paintings, AI is now beginning to be seen as more than just an assistive tool, but as a content "completer." This is where the question arises: "Who is the author of this work?" In cultural content, the author has long been understood not as simply the creator of the finished product, but as someone who shares the intent, responsibility, and worldview. The debate over whether AI can occupy this position is not a technological one, but a cultural one.

The current landscape of AI creative expansion

Recently, AI has gone beyond just proposing ideas, drafting, and style variations to rapidly produce finished products. Leveraging AI to create content has become commonplace, especially in areas like text, images, video, and music where human expertise was once crucial. While this shift has lowered the barriers to creativity, it has also blurred the definition of what constitutes a writer.

What is an Author: The Concept of Responsibility, Not Results

Traditionally, writers assume three things:

First, there is creative intent.

Second, take responsibility for the results.

Third, understand the context and meaning of the work.

AI fails to fully fulfill any of these three requirements. It lacks intentionality, cannot assume responsibility, and does not "understand" cultural context. It merely reproduces patterns.

Why AI Still Looks Like a Writer

The reason AI appears to be a writer is because it so exquisitely mimics human language and emotional expression. In particular, it accurately follows narrative structure, emotional arcs, and genre grammar, easily leading readers to mistakenly believe it has captured the author's intent. However, this is not the creation of meaning, but rather the statistical recombination of meaning.

Law and institutions have not yet provided an answer.

From a copyright perspective, AI's authorship remains uncertain. In most countries, copyright belongs exclusively to humans. AI-generated works fall into a gray area, as described below, and this uncertainty is currently impacting the entire cultural industry.

• If it is used as a tool, the rights are vested in humans.
• If there is no human intervention, it is not subject to protection; or

Real Impact on the Cultural Content Industry

The debate over AI's authorship is not simply a philosophical debate.

• The platform must clearly define who is responsible.
• Creators must redefine their role.
• Consumers are again asking, 'Who created the content?'

Especially in brand stories, IP businesses, and worldview content, the very existence of the author becomes the basis for trust.

The perspective of "AI co-creators" rather than "AI writers"

A realistic alternative is to abandon this dichotomy. The question isn't whether to recognize or exclude AI as an author, but rather how far we define human creation. Many creative fields already embrace AI as co-creators or extended tools. The key here is that humans still retain the final say in making decisions and interpreting the work.

Cultural Risk: The Spread of Irresponsible Creativity

The more we mistake AI for authorship, the more dangerous it becomes. When content containing hate, distortion, or bias is created, AI cannot be held accountable. This responsibility ultimately falls back on humans and platforms. The debate over authorship ultimately boils down to where responsibility lies.

Insight Summary

AI can create cultural content, but it cannot be an author. At least for now, AI doesn't generate meaning, but rather synthesizes it. In cultural content, the author is not a product, but a designation of responsibility and context. The crucial question going forward will not be, "Is AI an author?" but, "How far will we go in protecting human creation?" The defining boundary is not AI, but rather a domain defined by humans who understand culture and society.