There’s a paradox with how we approach “creation”: if there is an entity that lets us “create” things effortlessly, then what are the possibilities that the entity can “create”? It might “create” new things, but it’s only exclusively trained on the things that have already existed. Sooner or later, it won’t be able to “create” things on its own… unless we humans add novel input from ourselves. Or just ignore the entity and realize how valuable we are as a human being when it comes to creation. We all get inspired from others, yes, but we don’t get exclusively inspired from others. We get inspired from ourselves even.

And sure, that same entity might be able to “create” some new novel things that we haven’t thought about before… but that’s because we haven’t thought of that in the first place. Of course, there’s the potential of the ability to “create” something novel by itself, but the paradox still exists. It would run out of ideas, and if it gets fed its own things to “create” new “ideas”… it would start to collapse.

We, as human beings, have our own ability to create things. Though we also have the ability to remove things, like what I did in this text. Typos, errors, half-baked thoughts, autocorrections… they just happen. The entity just doesn’t do like what we do. The entity simply “creates” over and over again as it “needs” to.

Those who are creating the entity possible and are glorifying it are out of their minds… no, literally. Would you want to be patronized by a computer? What about a human instead? Though I’m sure that they’ll be a bit more realistic, hopefully.