Same issue, now with responses from the technical, ethical, and creator perspectives. I want to approach it from a different angle—looking at the "power structure" of this matter.

Surface answer: tools vs identity
The most straightforward explanation is: code is a tool, poetry is an identity.
Programmers use AI to write code, which is like a carpenter using an electric saw. 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 isn't an efficiency issue; it's a sense of existence issue.
This answer isn't wrong, but it only explains the phenomenon, not the mechanism. Why is code categorized as a "tool," while art is categorized as an "identity"? Who draws this boundary?
The modern version of the art of weighing importance
2700 years ago, the Prime Minister of Qi during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States period, Guan Zhong, had the core logic of the "art of weighing importance": 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 function can run," not "who wrote these 100 lines of code." So AI replacing code faces the least resistance.
The creative layer of the art