# Enough With "Human-AI Collaboration"

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.01615 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.01615/

## Key facts

- Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 2 Jun 2023.

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Exploring Perspectives on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Creativity of Knowledge Work: Beyond Mechanised Plagiarism and Stochastic Parrots](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.10751/) (2023)
- [Understanding Practices around Computational News Discovery Tools in the Domain of Science Journalism](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.06864/) (2023)
- [AI, Meet Human: Learning Paradigms for Hybrid Decision Making Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06287/) (2024)
- [Constella: Supporting Storywriters' Interconnected Character Creation through LLM-based Multi-Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.05820/) (2025)
- [Exploring Collaborative GenAI Agents in Synchronous Group Settings: Eliciting Team Perceptions and Design Considerations for the Future of Work](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.14779/) (2025)
- [Inspectable AI for Science: A Research Object Approach to Generative AI Governance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.11261/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Describing our interaction with Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems as 'collaboration' is well-intentioned, but flawed. Not only is it misleading, but it also takes away the credit of AI 'labour' from the humans behind it, and erases and obscures an often exploitative arrangement between AI producers and consumers. The AI 'collaboration' metaphor is merely the latest episode in a long history of labour appropriation and credit reassignment that disenfranchises labourers in the Global South. I propose that viewing AI as a tool or an instrument, rather than a collaborator, is more accurate, and ultimately fairer.