I think this is an important distinction. AI can be creative in that it can develop something new and unique, but it will have arrived at it by chance - through random inputs to the algorithm designed to minic evolutionary mutations that end up beneficial.

I agree that (at least for now) it would not be able to develop something out of inspiration or emotion. But that’s because we don’t understand enough about how emotion and inspiration are developed to create an algorithm that cultivates it.

But all of human creation is derivative.

Right, the trick will be quantifying what is ‘likely to be a hit’, which if we’re honest, has already been done.

Also, neural networks and other evolutionary algorithms can inject random perturbations/mutations to the system which, operate a bit like uninformed creativity (something like banging on a piano and hearing something interesting that’s worth pursuing). So, while not ‘inspired’ or ‘soulful’ as we would generally think of it, these algorithms are capable of being creative In some sense. But it would need to be recognized as ‘good’ by someone or something…and back to your point.

David Brooks wrote a good article in the New York Times today that tries to help shift perspectives a bit to understand this. I’d highly recommend reading it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/opinion/trump-meritocracy-educated.html