This is not a semantic discussion, so negative brownie points to the first commenter who quotes a dictionary. This is philosophy, so get out your pointy hat.

Can you sense the difference in nuance between "make" and "create"?

I seem to regularly get into discussions about this, and they seem to be accelerating, so I thought I'd poke a pin in it and post this here for open discourse.

IMO, if you are responding to someone else's idea, synthesizing concepts you did not originate, or just in general offering a variation or improvement on something someone else has done, you are making something, not creating anything.

In my view, creating is a superset of making, where you make something without external reference.

Of course, some pedant will point out that there will always be some sort of external reference, as even the most creative writer will not invent paper, ink, or the language they write in. Ditto for pigment and canvas, bits and discs, etc. And I'll grant that, while simultaneously making covert rude gestures at said pedant.

But somewhere along a continuum comes a point where we stop merely decorating or elaborating upon something that came before and bring something new into existence. And that is the point where "making" becomes "creating".

I know lots of makers, I'm surrounded by them in fact, on several fronts. But I can count the creators I regularly interact with without resorting to double digits. And I'm thankful that I know so many makers, and the world would be a poorer place without even a single one of them, but every blessed one of them considers themself a creator, and that causes me pain.

I considered myself a creator at one time, but adding time's perspective shows me that I was simply shifting red to blue, or changing key, and thinking it was new. But it wasn't new, only different.