My terse reply actually indicates an understanding that we completely lack a formal definition of "genuine creativity", and therefore any such claims are vague intuitions at best.

> I don't have feelings, thoughts, or experiences

This implicitly assumes we have a mechanistic understanding of feelings, thoughts or experiences. We don't, therefore we can make no such definitive claims about how machine learning and human cognitive processes. ChatGPT has specifically been trained to give this response despite agreeing with an argument that suggests it could indeed have mental states:

https://twitter.com/naasking/status/1598802001428566016

> As an AI, I don't possess creativity in the human sense. I don't have feelings, thoughts, or experiences, and I don't generate ideas or concepts spontaneously

Define "spontaneously". If you mean that humans act without apparent cause, that does not entail there is no cause. If there is a cause, then that cause can be modeled as an input into a pure function. ChatGPT and other ML systems are pure functions can also mix concepts and generate new and unique outputs from its learned state space given such inputs. Humans are still more complex than such systems, so the mystique can hide in the perceived complexity, but don't mistake this for a different kind of process. Which isn't to say that it is the same process, I'm saying there's no real basis for either claim.

I think there's a lot of sloppy thinking going on when comparing human brains and ML, particularly ascribing some sort of exceptionalism to humans. There's a long, incorrect history of that.