Personally I'm inclined to see things like GPT-3 as qualitatively different to human creativity, but I don't claim to know this for a fact.
I just think there's a lot of people arguing "well this can't be creativity" out of some sort of anti-AI signalling sentiment, where they've become so used to disagreeing with unwarranted AI optimism that they undervalue AI progress routinely. In other words, "this can't be creativity, because we don't understand creativity" or "this can't be creativity because AI is very far from human-level" or such.
(Personally, I believe GPT-3 and CLIP are already superhuman; that is, superior to the circuitry in the brain doing the equivalent job. They only look weak because we're trying to make them do all of the job in one step, when we're comparing them to the brain's highly heterogenous self-correcting approach.)
My views on the matter have nothing to do with being "anti-AI" or "signalling" to anyone, and the latter suggestion is mildly offensive. Like many here, while being no sort of expert I've thought quite a lot about these questions and have fairly detailed views about them. I suspect strong AI is possible and will not require new fundamental physics or anything like that. However, I suspect that if it is achieved it will be of a very different nature to GPT-3 etc and to ML in general. I don't think the behaviour demonstrated by these systems so far resembles human creativity, understanding or reasoning at all, although they are capable of impressive and fascinating things. I'd go so far as to say the differences seem, to me at least, rather obvious, if difficult to define. However, I'm open to alternative views and to the possibility I may be wrong.
I greatly enjoy discussing these sorts of things, but adversarial exchanges on hn filled with ad-hominems aren't the way I like to do it.
