I think it's entirely possible that "creativity" is the introduction of entropy into biological systems. Whether that's through the environment (perspective) or genetics. I'm not sure that AI is bad at purely abstract things as its roots lay in the abstract. It is however pretty bad at interacting with the physical world (besides a few very focused and specific tasks).
Ultimately though you need to dive in the Turing test. When we can't tell if AI is sentient or not, it should be considered sentient. Would a robot "brain" (intelligence) be sufficient to provide evidence for "proof of brain", or are we purely interested in the human brain?
Interesting.
Maybe the "greater" story arc then becomes one of what we are really striving for. If the "measure" of the species is merely to see how far we can advance on a purely mechanical/technological scale then perhaps sentient AI represents the pinnacle of development.
Our species epitaph might read "And the humans created artifical version of themselves to replace themselves."
The question, then, is whether that's the most appropriate scale to use? Not sure I can follow creativity as entropy, though... if so, that entropy has been going on for a long time; in archeological digs we marvel as much at our forefathers' ART as we do their TECHNOLOGY.
=^..^=
Posted using Proof of Brain