My impression of chatgpt so far is that it's good at replicating existing human behavior, but bad at doing anything out-of-sample. It anchors quickly onto patterns that have been done by many people before, but there's definitely something that we call "original thinking" that it's not doing at all.

I agree with you, but historically speaking this distinction hasn’t held up well, right? People said AI generated classic music “lacked soul” but then when blinded weren’t able to tell it apart from Bach. 

Your examples are correct but I’m just not sure how long this holds up.

Founder @ roboagencies.com — helping people get products built 10X cheaper via AI superteams

Previously founder @withBackdrop (acquired by Seed Club)

Yeah absolutely, I feel the same. Although for me at least, the past few weeks has decreased my estimate to how long until AI’s are producing writing than fairly expert judges will deem “original thinking.” Not months away perhaps, but not decades either.

I'm definitely not claiming that humans have some unreplicable deep essence. More that we now have a clearer picture of the strengths and the limits of current approaches (which will undoubtedly be improved on)