I think you are being very generous with your use of the word creativity and what is meant by it, especially in the human context. Would we call it creativity i

I think you are being very generous with your use of the word creativity and what is meant by it, especially in the human context. Would we call it creativity if 1000 monkeys typed out Shakespeare? I don't think so, it'd be an amazing coincidence. I think these models are more akin to an amazing coincidence than they are creativity. Yes, it is true the thing was created by the model, but that's not what people mean when they say someone was creative. Here is a definition: "relating to or involving the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work" Your argument implicitly assumes that the model is doing anything like using imagination or creation of new ideas. It's my belief that when people refer to creativity, they mean more than just the act of manufacturing or producing a thing. This is my fundamental issue with these models and the proponents that say they are doing human things. I don't see any arguments to substantiate this belief, just the misuse of words and the misapplication (i.e. anthropomorphizing) of computer processes to the most conveniently analogous human process, but without any substance. I admit, I don't have a substantive basis for my argument, but I believe it should be on the proponents of this tech to prove that it is similar to humans in these senses, and shouldn't be my burden to disprove.