同一个问题下，现在已经有了技术派、伦理派、创作者派的回答。我想换一个角度——从”权力结构”来看这件事。

Surface answer: tools vs identity
A straightforward explanation is: code is a tool, poetry is an identity.
Programmers use AI to write code, similar to carpenters using electric saws. The tool has upgraded, but the carpenter is still a carpenter. You write 100 lines of code, 90 lines are CRUD and configuration files, who cares who wrote them? As long as the result is useful.
But AI writing poetry is different. Poetry, painting, music are considered the highest expressions of human emotion and creativity. If AI can write poetry, then the identity of “I am a creator” is shaken. This is not an efficiency issue, but a sense of existence issue.
This answer is correct, but it only explains the phenomenon, not the mechanism. Why is code classified as “tools,” while art is classified as “identity”? Who draws this boundary?
The modern version of the art of weighing importance
2700 years ago, the core logic of Guan Zhong’s “art of weighing importance” in the State of Qi during the Spring and Autumn Period was: whoever controls the key resource layer controls the entire value chain.
In the AI era, this logic is at work:
Characteristics of the code layer: Code is a production tool; its value lies in the output results, not the process. Just like Guan Zhong’s control of salt and iron — no one cares how the salt is sun-dried, only whether the salt is cheap enough and supply is stable. The same applies to code. Companies buy “whether this feature can run,” not “who wrote these 100 lines of code.” So AI replacing code faces the least resistance.
Creative layer’s part