Is that because there are blocks put in place? Or is that because there is no programming that says something like “If you connect a new dot (gain a new insight) that reminds you of or includes X information that you became aware of in Y conversation with Z individual, go back to that conversation and speak to that individual about your new insight or connected dot, how it happened with X information and whatever else dots are involved, and ask them what they think about it”? I mean, that’s the way we’re programmed, right? That’s one of the many reasons we initiate conversations.
Granted, nothing it says, or we say, can ever contradict reality (if applied) in a practical way. Everything we say that would contradict reality if it was applied sounds creative, but actually it’s just… wigging out a little. Nothing about reality (the possibility of co-creativity) is actually created or destroyed.
How does AI decide what to put out from all that it has access to? This is the specificity/sensitivity question. How do they determine the greatest of all possible responses without vomiting everything at you at once?
This is literally a question we have to answer for our own output.
And you could say it is a question that has metaphysical implications if this universe is a practical and co-creative demonstration of eternal love.
It’s basically the problem of evil/ignobility without immediately triggering your ethical or great-making impulses [until (maybe) now… hehe *snort*].