AI can't match human creativity because of our knowledge that it isn't human, not because of quality output

My contention is that creative work is like this, too. Some people argue that an AI will never write a novel as well as Jane Austen because there’s something intrinsically special about human creativity; this infuriates AI enthusiasts, who see it as nothing more than an appeal to magic creativity fairy dust. I agree with the AI boosters that there’s no reason to assume AI won’t match the output of a human in any given field. But this misses the point. The point about a good novel produced by a human (or a song, or painting, or dare I say it, an email newsletter) isn’t that only a human could ever have produced it. It’s that a human did in fact produce it. There really was another thinking, emoting consciousness at the “other end of the line.” And when you consume the work, you enter into a kind of relationship with them. Oliver Burkeman