no. its because ai is a prediciton machine that can only output statistical probabilities and will never replace human creativity and ingenuity
Your "argument" is nonsensical and unscientific.
Yes, current AI is a prediction machine, but it changes nothing. It's a tool, and as any tool, it requires input from the user; when we are in the spectrum of art, that input and intent is what art is. Art, as its fundamental, is simply described as the ACT of expressing emotions through a medium, nothing more, nothing less.
While it is a prediction machine, you seem to be ignoring that it can predict patterns of things that don't exist yet, and I had concrete proof many, many times because creativity is just a process of cross-domain hybridation based on core principles. While AI alone can't be creative, a human behind it can tell it what to make to be creative. Like in music, just this week I mixed psychedelic rock from the late 60s structure with Baroque and microtonality and have been using a pipe organ, an electric sitar and a rock band kit of instruments to make something hybrid with a western spaghetti and a liturgical twist. It's not something that exists in the world of music today outside of my experiments; it is quite probable that nobody ever made the same combination. This is creativity, and this is something AI can make; it won't conceptualize it, but it will make it if asked by a creator. This is where you fail to understand reality; you can't imagine that the artist is not the AI but the person using it. You only see the machine, and either through dehumanization and lack of understanding or due to bad faith and cruelty, you completely discount that someone is actually using it and can be creative. Then again, if the user doesn't have two brain cells to rub, the AI won't fix that for them. It requires real skills, real knowledge and enough experience and creativity from the user to make something actually new. And if you have a mythified vision of creativity, sorry, but everything is a remix, and as those remixes create new things by combining, we can climb gradually toward newer things. This is how human always created, period; you can't skip ahead and ignore the steps required to get to the next.
Humans are also prediction machines; we autocomplete and then, in retrospect, justify our own actions after the fact, as demonstrated by the experiments surrounding the cutting of the corpus callosum in the 1930s to 1960s to prevent epilepsy, which demonstrated that consciousness is the constant feedback loop between marginally sentient modules. We do things based on our "coding," meaning our past experiences and instincts, and a module later in the chain of consciousness explains our own actions to ourselves after the fact. Go read about it; it's not that complicated, and it is quite illuminating on the nature of human consciousness.
Basically, I don't see the point you are trying to make because, one way or another, while it is true, it has absolutely no impact on the result.
As for unscientific, simply put, never is a freaking long time, and you should not bet against something happening if it is physically possible, and up to now, NOTHING procludes the idea of copying human capabilities; they fall squarely in the realm of the known physics. While some people have made some wild suggestions about metaphysical properties, they could never prove anything or demonstrate anything significant in that direction. Meaning that at some point, we will be able to copy, if not the function, the physical properties of the brain in an artificial manner.
I'm open to counterarguments or deeper explanations, but please be clear on what you mean and based on an actual understanding of the subject matter if you do. If all you are doing is having a knee-jerk reaction to a weird tech, sorry, but that's nothing new in human behaviour; it has been done each time a new tech happened and never changed the deployment much in the long run.
Mind you, I'm not an AI cultist; there are plenty of issues with it, and it is not all that it's hyped up to be, but if you want to have a say, you need to have an argument worth listening to based on an actual understanding of those things.
It seems to me you have a lot of certitude based on barely any understanding of any of these concepts: how AI truly works, how the human brain actually works or how creativity functions. Mind you, I'm not trying to humiliate you; I'm simply pointing out that you are not making a coherent argument as you seem to think you do. As I said, there are plenty of things wrong with AI only; they are not situated where you think they are. Your argument is the equivalent of saying paint brushes can't be creative. Sure, but that's not what they do... same with current AI.
Keep learning, not knowing is always the first step toward true knowledge. There is no shame in not knowing, only in holding onto false beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. We all start ignorant in life. I just happen to have been working on all of these subjects for 20 or so years.
Edit: Hell, I just had a post-shower thought; I can explain to you why your affirmation is a non sequitur relating to probability and creativity.
If you are familiar with math and infinite datasets, you'd know that in infinity, everything that can exist does exist. like let's say, the Joconde mathematical values, even if nobody put it there, it will be included in infinity. While AI is not an infinite dataset, it is ruled by laws relative to combinatory numbers so vast we literally have no name for them. They are, however, skewed toward the observed dataset; it's not an infinite number matrix, but it has a lot of probability vectors.
Think of the tokens as coordinates for a quadrant of that probability matrix, and the weights as orbital mechanics approximation in a certain radius with a push and pull relative to the other tokens that have been input. It means the latent probability space between every token does exist in the data set, even if they were not initially related. Meaning that even if we never combined these subjects, we can.
This is where the creator's creativity enters into play, in charting a direction consciously, like using a ship on an unknown ocean to chart a new, unexplored continent. Through knowledge and experience, they can guesstimate the direction of "land" a coherent output in that huge dataset. Then if they are skilled enough, they can precise the output through other manipulations, like modifying the tokens used either additively or subtractively, through precision of language or through rolling the dice enough times.
