That’s not really a quantifiable measure, though. It’s a statement but not a falsifiable one, therefore not a good measure.
There’s an argument that the vast majority of human-generated research isn’t really “novel” but just derivative of other ideas. I’m not so sure ChatGPT couldn’t combine existing ideas to come up with something “novel” just like humans. I think there’s a case that it already comes up with creative, novel solutions in the drug space.
Do you understand what LLMs are? Of course they're not going to have original ideas because they're not alive and they are not intelligent. They're just dead-as-a-doornail algorithms.
I'm not disagreeing on that point. I'm pushing back on your almost mystic use of the term creativity because it's a claim that's not falsifiable. It's like saying "ChatGPT isn't conscious." I'd tend to agree, but the claim is a bad one because we can't even adequately define consciousness in order to test the claim.
