This is great, you make two strong points: the copyright issues, and the definition of humanity (we create). The only thing left unresolved, is this part: "people are using AI because they thinks it writes better or faster than they do."

You haven't proven that this is false on either counts. The vast majority of authors never finish their books; and if they do, they aren't good. They may have creative, inspired ideas, but writing is a craft and a practice that requires decades to master the skill... at least it was until now.

I just saw someone arguing on Reddit that they *hate* AI to write books... but it's absolutely fine if you have the *ideas* and just use AI to develop the story; or clean up your manuscript, fix all the mistakes, improve the prose, show don't tell etc. In other words all that "craft" part is devalued and unnecessary, because it is now possible to get AI to fix or write your story... and it IS better, and faster, in most cases - at least for those amateur (those who do for love) writers with big dreams and no skills.

The question of whether or not it is really authentically creative or human, even if that's definitively true, doesn't reduce the benefits that authors are experiencing... another Reddit post, or maybe the same one, said you should keep writing and writing has value even if nobody reads it or buys it - we haven't yet proven that actual human readers prefer human stories over AI assisted ones, that's assumed, and so far it doesn't seem likely, since all the viral content I've seen in the past few months has been AI. If your goal is to exist as a creator, and write for pleasure, AI threatens your identity. If you just want to finish your story, clean it up and make it good enough to share, AI removes previously impossible barriers.