AI and creativity: a slightly (too?) philosophical discussion

My very brief dabble with ChatGPT highlighted what I have felt is coming for some time: the capacity and potential of artificial intelligence to usurp our roles as creators. It has led me to think carefully about our vision as a school: 'he puna auaha a centre of creative excellence'. 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Creativity_questioned%3F_%2830255881531%29.jpg

This vision was partly driven by the belief that creativity is one of the key components that defines our humanity. These are the things that separate us from technology and AI. If AI can now replace us as creators (if!!), as it would seem ChatGPT and AI generally could do, then where does it leave us?

This has led me to arrive at a dichotomy best expressed in these two statements. 

1. 'We are creative because we are human'. That is, being creative is a fundamental part of being human. It helps to define us, it is an inherent part of our humanity. 
2. 'Because we are human, we are creative'. If you like, this is the idea that creativity feeds our 'souls' (not intended in a strictly spiritual sense), it nurtures our spirit, it provides a means to express who and what we are. It is an essential outlet for us,  it affirms our identity.

You may not agree with me (and that's fine, we need to be able to disagree), You may think that these mean the same thing, and that's fine too. To my way of thinking they have those different meanings. Maybe there is a better way to express it. With all of that said and done, I now think it is the latter. It is our humanity that drives a need to be creative.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-makes-us-human/ .. albeit a biological discussion, you get the idea

 

So while AI generally might well be able to produce a 'product' that appears to be creative, this does not usurp a fundamental role of creativity as an expression of our humanity. 

Perhaps foolishly I put the two phrases into ChatGPT, and got this back:

"The difference between the two sentences is the order of the clauses. The first sentence, "We are creative because we are human," implies that being human is the reason for our creativity. The second sentence, "Because we are human, we are creative," implies that being human is a prerequisite for our creativity. In other words, the first sentence is saying that our humanity causes our creativity and the second sentence is saying that our humanity is a necessary condition for our creativity."

Sort of... but not quite what I have tried to explain.

Does it matter? Perhaps not. Either way I still hold to my opinion that schools need to nurture creativity in their communities. Given the work of Professor Peter O'Connor and his team on the benefits of creativity to human wellbeing, and school achievement, it seems to me that to ignore its inclusion in our daily school life is foolish at least.