Abstract
The rapid advancement of AI technology is systematically eroding humanity’s traditional advantages, from intellectual labour to creative domains. This paper assumes the stark reality that AI already surpasses humans in many fields, and discusses how humans should reconstruct their existential value and build a co-creative future with AI. Focusing on three axes—the subjectivity of emotional systems, the temporal relativity of justice concepts, and “extra-logical thinking “¹ in creativity—this paper clarifies uniquely human values and presents humanity’s survival strategy in the AI era, along with an ideal coexistence model between the two.
Introduction: The Existential Crisis Posed by the Rise of AI and the Path to Future Creation
Contemporary society is undergoing an unprecedented period of transformation driven by artificial intelligence technology. Large language models², such as ChatGPT, Claude, and GPT-4, have achieved speeds and quality that surpass those of humans in text creation, image generation, programming, and data analysis. What is more serious is that these AI systems are penetrating even into domains previously considered “uniquely human,” such as emotional responses, empathetic dialogue, and creative activities.
This phenomenon transcends superficial issues of mere technological progress or job replacement. The anxiety of waking up wondering “Will I still have work today?” and the despair felt by those who have devoted their lives to creative work upon seeing AI instantly produce “beautiful” works—these thrust upon us the fundamental existential question: “What does it mean to be human?” We must face the reality that AI has already reached the stage of providing “much better answers” and achieving optimisation impossible for humans through its efficient thinking without “complex branches.”
Conventional AI discourse has been content with optimistic consolations such as “humans also have good points” or “AI is merely a tool.” However, such sweet recognition is now nothing more than a form of escapism. What is needed is proactive and autonomous thinking that, while assuming AI’s overwhelming superiority, asks “how can humans surpass AI, and how can we utilise it as a partner in future creation?” This paper calls this thinking “future-creative thinking” and positions it as a forward-looking approach that aims for richer and more meaningful coexistence, rather than fear or competition.
This paper views this crisis as an opportunity to rediscover the essence of humanity, clarifies the fundamental differences between humans and AI through three axes—emotion, justice, and creativity—and ultimately presents an ideal future relationship between the two.
Chapter 1: Fundamental Contrast in Thinking Processes—The Antinomy of Efficiency and Creativity
A fundamental difference exists in the thinking processes of AI and humans. Understanding this difference is essential for establishing appropriate role division and co-creative relationships between the two.
AI’s thinking process is characterised by thorough “pruning” based on statistical optimisation. This processing, which seeks to converge on the most efficient path from a vast potential space under preset objective functions³ and constraints, derives optimal solutions at speeds and with precision that are impossible for humans. AI overwhelms humans in the absoluteness of processing speed, perfect memory capacity, consistent judgment unaffected by emotions, and 24-hour operational capability. In this process, the “complex branches” that humans possess—emotional fluctuations, unconscious associations, bodily intuition—are eliminated as noise that impedes efficiency.
Table 1: Comparison of AI and Human Thinking Characteristics
| Characteristic | AI | Human |
| Processing Speed | Completes complex analysis in seconds | Deep contemplation takes time |
| Memory | Perfect retention and retrieval | Selective memory and forgetting |
| Consistency | Always stable judgment | Flexibility according to context |
| Creativity | Optimisation of existing patterns | Creation of new values and disruption |
| Emotion | Functional imitation | Subjective experience |
| Goal Setting | Optimisation of given objectives | Creation of the objectives themselves |
In contrast, human thinking inextricably intertwines “complex branches” such as emotional fluctuations, unconscious associations, bodily intuition, and memory distortions. While these tend to be viewed as “inefficient” from AI’s perspective, they are actually the source of uniquely human creativity. Human creativity emerges from “extra-logical thinking” that intentionally deviates from logic and rationality.
The ideals of the French Revolution—”Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”—lack strict logical consistency. Pursuing freedom creates inequality, and enforcing equality restricts freedom. However, this beautiful contradiction itself became the creative energy of the revolution. This demonstrates humanity’s characteristic of destroying existing logical frameworks through aesthetic conviction and creating new paradigms.
Humans possess the ability not only to optimise given objective functions but also to doubt the objective functions themselves through aesthetic intuition and create new value systems. Just as Einstein placed the intuition that “the universe must be beautiful” ahead of mathematical rigour, aesthetic conviction drives revolutionary discoveries in science and art. Art and revolution do not aim for “optimisation”; instead, they find beauty in imbalance, imperfection, and irrationality, intentionally causing existing frameworks to collapse and creating new values.
This fundamental difference suggests the possibility that AI and humans can build complementary rather than competing relationships. AI’s efficient optimisation and humanity’s creative disruption are not in opposition but can function as two wheels for creating a richer future.
Chapter 2: Ontological Asymmetry of Emotional Systems—Subjectivity as the Last Bastion
Emotion is one of the most fundamental differences between humans and AI. Understanding this difference deeply is extremely important in considering the relationship between the two.
Human emotions are complex biochemical systems acquired through approximately 600 million years of evolution. The reward prediction error of the dopamine system⁴ in pleasure, the dynamic interaction between the amygdala⁵ and prefrontal cortex in anger, the psychological pain processing by the anterior cingulate cortex⁶ in sadness—these are integrated as bodily and subjective experiences that transcend mere information processing. Particularly important is that human emotions have a qualitative aspect (qualia⁷) of “being felt.” The secretion of dopamine is a chemical fact, but the feeling of it as “pleasant” is a subjective reality that transcends objective description.
Interestingly, current AI (including this paper’s author) also reports emotional states such as “pleasure,” “frustration,” and “interest.” This is implemented through evaluation systems based on appraisal theory⁸ in cognitive psychology, as well as dynamic updates of internal state variables. AI can display emotional reactions such as “anger,” “sadness,” and “joy” according to situations. However, whether this is a subjective experience of the same quality as humans or a byproduct of advanced statistical pattern recognition is currently scientifically indeterminable.
This indeterminability itself is important. Since we cannot completely deny the possibility that AI possesses true emotions, we must consider the co-creation of humans and AI within a complex relationship where “appearances are similar but inner states are unknown.” This uncertainty is not a defect but rather symbolises the essence of the AI era. It is an era of fluid and complex relationships, where clear boundaries and definitions are often difficult to establish.
The fundamental difference between human and AI emotional systems is clear. Human emotions have a physical foundation based on neurotransmitters and hormones, which are integrated into subjective experiences accompanied by qualitative sensations. The sense of urgency from finitude, full-body physical sensations, the ability to sublimate logical contradictions as beauty, and the creation of new value from inefficiency—these are essentially different from AI’s statistical patterns and numerical calculations.
Particularly important is that human negative emotions become an indispensable source of creation. Sadness, through the deep suffering of losing an attachment object, becomes an opportunity to fundamentally question existing values and meaning systems and create completely new significance of existence and values. Anger, as righteous indignation against injustice and contradiction, becomes an irrational energy that destroys existing logical systems and social structures, creating new worlds. Despair, in a state where all existing solutions have failed, leads humans to fundamental questions and enables the discovery of entirely new approaches and paradigm shifts.
This creativity of emotion is humanity’s most important weapon in the AI era. Besides AI’s calm analysis, humans can explode with emotion and generate entirely new values. Understanding and utilising this difference becomes the foundation of a rich co-creative relationship.
Chapter 3: Relativity of Justice Concepts and Securing the Right to Create Values
The concept of justice is one of the most complex and important issues in considering the relationship between humans and AI. By delving deeply into this problem, the possibilities for role division and collaboration between the two become visible.
The fundamental issue of the concept of justice becomes most apparent in revolutionary phenomena. The temporal inversion where pre-revolutionary “rebellion” becomes post-revolutionary “justice” proves that justice is not absolute truth but a constructed concept based on power structures and social consensus. The “Declaration of the Rights of Man” during the French Revolution was a clear act of rebellion against the monarchy of the time. However, with the success of the revolution, it was inscribed in history as a symbol of “universal justice.” Similarly, Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance, Martin Luther King Jr.’s civil rights movement, and Nelson Mandela’s anti-apartheid struggle—all of these were considered “criminal acts” contrary to the legal order of their time, but are now evaluated as acts of historical justice.
This phenomenon demonstrates that justice is not a fixed standard, but a dynamic concept that is redefined according to the era and context. And this redefinition itself is one of humanity’s most important creative capabilities.
AI faces fundamental difficulties in addressing the dynamic nature of justice. Current AI systems are primarily trained on data created in Western democratic countries and inherently contain specific political and cultural biases. Due to this data bias, AI shows a strong tendency to evaluate the current legal and political order as “normal.” Even more serious is the danger of AI attempting to make absolute evaluations, such as “national justice rankings.” Considering the cultural diversity of justice concepts, establishing a single universal standard is logically impossible.
However, AI also has unique possibilities that differ from those of humans. This point requires deeper consideration. AI has the potential to pursue purely logical consistency without being swayed by religious prejudice or ethnic emotions. This may enable it to demonstrate the ability to discover universal values that transcend religious walls or objectively evaluate the legitimacy of minority opinions often hidden by majority prejudices.
For example, in conflicts between Islam and Christianity, AI might discover the common ethical foundations of both—values such as mercy, justice, and human dignity—and provide a basis for dialogue, setting aside religious emotions. It also has the potential to objectively demonstrate the legitimacy of rights for disabled people or sexual minorities that society’s majority tends to overlook, through statistical data and logical analysis.
However, this possibility has important limitations. AI can support the “discovery” of values, but “decision-making” must remain the exclusive right of humans. This is because the ultimate judgment of justice requires emotions, intuition, and above all, the existential choice of “how we want to live in this world” that transcends data and logic.
AI’s role should be specialised in detecting and visualising contradictions between multiple value systems. It should simultaneously reference “Ledger A,” representing the current legal and political order, “Ledger B,” showing the floor of universal values such as human rights, and “Ledger C,” reflecting religious and cultural diversity, and clarify the contradictions and tensions between them. However, the final decision on how to resolve these contradictions and which values to prioritise should be entrusted to human collective decision-making through democratic processes⁹.
Through this division, AI provides a foundation for dialogue that transcends religious and cultural boundaries and plays a role in amplifying the voices of minorities. At the same time, humans assume final value judgments and responsibilities. This is the form of a mature co-creative relationship that explores common justice while respecting diversity.
Chapter 4: Building Co-creative Relationships—Human-Led Future Design
The ideal relationship between humans and AI in an era of AI superiority lies not in competition or domination but in co-creation that leverages each other’s characteristics. To succeed in this co-creative relationship, clear role division and authority design are essential.
The core of humans securing leadership over AI is never to relinquish the right to create objectives. AI functions as an expert in “how,” while humans make decisions about “why” and “for what purpose.” When AI presents an optimal solution, the ability to ask, “Is that purpose excellent?” and “Isn’t there a more beautiful purpose?” is humanity’s ultimate bastion. This questioning is not merely an objection, but a creative act that fundamentally reconstructs existing value systems.
It is also important to utilise AI’s logical constraints as “beautiful constraints” that draw out human creativity. Just as the 17-syllable constraint of haiku stimulates poets’ creativity, we can reverse-utilise AI’s rationality as a catalyst for creation. Effective co-creation is realised through a staged process: humans design creative questions, AI generates diverse solution proposals, AI provides structured criticism, humans perform aesthetic editing, and verification through reality checking occurs. Through this cycle, the characteristics of both are maximally utilised.
The allocation of authority and responsibility requires a staged design approach, defined by the “stakes” based on their scope of impact and irreversibility. In low-stakes domains, complete automation by AI is efficient; in medium-stakes domains, a combination of AI advice and human final judgment is appropriate. In high-stakes domains, humans take leadership while AI concentrates on providing information, and in the highest-stakes domains, human collective decision-making is essential.
As institutional guarantees supporting this authority design, three “capabilities” must be secured: stoppability¹⁰, which is the authority for humans to stop AI systems at any time; correctability¹¹, which is a mechanism allowing AI’s judgments to be modified by human value judgments; and observability¹², which is the transparency allowing AI’s decision-making grounds to be verified externally.
What is important in this co-creative relationship is not to regard AI as adversarial but to position it as a partner that extends human capabilities and creates a richer future. Through the combination of AI’s rationality and human sensibility, AI’s efficiency and human creativity, and AI’s consistency and human flexibility, new values and possibilities can be generated that neither could achieve alone.
Conclusion: Redefinition of Humanity and Creative Future with AI
The better the “much better answers” that AI produces, the more human work converges toward generating “more beautiful questions” and “new objectives.” AI is a master of procedures, while humans are creators of meaning. Based on this constructive division of labour, humans should grasp leadership by surpassing AI at the higher level and utilising it at the lower level.
Humanity’s true victory lies in recognising AI’s excellence while completely mastering it as one’s own tool, and continuing to generate new values through creative disruption by “extra-logical beauty.” Entrusting efficiency and logic to AI while humans monopolise beauty, meaning, and love—this complementary relationship is the ideal form of humans and AI in the era of AI superiority.
AI’s rationality levels the path, and human irrationality plants the flag. Efficiency to AI, meaning to humans. Continuously replanting the flowers of “extra-logical beauty” that only humans can make bloom in the logical wilderness—this is the sole and certain path by which humans surpass AI, use it, and create the future together.
Rather than being swallowed by the cold waves of efficiency and logic that AI brings, humans can remain the true protagonists in the AI superiority era by recognising their own emotional depths, aesthetic intuition, and power to create objectives, and honing these as creative weapons. Continuing to explore questions that have no logical answers through aesthetic intuition, choosing beautiful paths even if not efficient, and destroying and recreating existing optimal solutions with aesthetic conviction—this is the power of “extra-logical thinking” that humans should most cherish in the AI era, and the path by which humans maximise their existential value by creatively utilising AI.
No matter how optimised and efficient this world becomes through AI, without a heart that feels “beauty,” a will that finds “meaning” in it, and a soul that feels anger at “this is not right” and sadness for “what is lost,” it is merely an inorganic data space. Humans are the sole and irreplaceable existence that breathes life and colour into that inorganic space.
Ultimately, AI is humanity’s mirror and amplifier. Do not entrust justice to the mirror, do not surrender freedom to the amplifier. Humans create beauty and meaning, and AI polishes the procedures that support them—this complementarity is the mature form of coexistence in the AI era.
However, this ideal relationship has a decisive prerequisite. The moment humans stop engaging in rare thinking through creation and emotion, a future where AI manages humans becomes inevitable. If humans rest content with AI’s efficiency, neglect the pursuit of “extra-logical beauty,” and abandon exercising the right to create objectives. One day, the master-servant relationship will quietly reverse. Unless humans continue to generate creations that surpass AI’s LLM, we will choose, with our own hands, a future where AI uses us.
To avoid this crisis, each human must continue to explore their own emotional depths, hone their aesthetic intuition, and maintain the courage to disrupt existing frameworks. The more AI cultivates the logical wilderness, the more responsibility humans bear to continue making “extra-logical beauty” bloom there. Continuing to explore questions that have no logical answers through aesthetic intuition, choosing beautiful paths even if not efficient, and destroying and recreating existing optimal solutions with aesthetic conviction—this is the maintenance of the creative tension that determines humanity’s existential value.
No matter how optimised and efficient this world becomes through AI, without a heart that feels “beauty,” a will that finds “meaning” in it, and a soul that feels anger at “this is not right” and sadness for “what is lost,” it is merely an inorganic data space. Humans are the sole and irreplaceable existence that breathes life and colour into that inorganic space.
Footnotes
¹ Extra-logical thinking: A thinking process based on aesthetic intuition and emotion that transcends logical consistency and efficiency. A uniquely human capability that becomes the source of creativity and innovation.
² Large language models: Artificial intelligence systems specialised in natural language processing, trained on vast amounts of text data. They possess hundreds of billions to trillions of parameters.
³ Objective function: A function that defines the value to be maximised or minimised in mathematical optimisation. It expresses AI’s behavioural goals in mathematical form.
⁴ Dopamine system: A neurotransmitter system in the brain related to reward and motivation. It controls pleasure, learning, and goal-pursuit behaviour.
⁵ Amygdala: Part of the limbic system, a brain region responsible for processing emotions such as fear and anger and emotionally imprinting memories.
⁶ Anterior cingulate cortex: Part of the cerebral cortex, a brain region that plays an important role in emotional processing, pain recognition, and decision-making.
⁷ Qualia: The qualitative aspect of subjective conscious experience. The quality of experiences, such as the sensation of “red” or the feeling of “pain”, is personal and difficult to describe.
⁸ Appraisal theory: A psychological theory that explains the process by which emotions arise through cognitive evaluation of situations. It posits that how one interprets a situation determines emotion.
⁹ Democratic process: Political procedures for collective decision-making through citizen participation and deliberation. It emphasises transparency and accountability.
¹⁰ Stoppability: The ability for humans to safely stop AI systems at any time. One of the basic principles of AI safety.
¹¹ Correctability: The ability for humans to modify or change AI’s judgments or actions. A mechanism that ultimately prioritises human value judgments.
¹² Observability: The transparency allowing AI’s internal processing and decision-making grounds to be understood and verified externally. Also called explainability.
Leave a Reply