Which, for the vast majority of creative people, has never been an option.
The popular traditions of not being creative and not using one’s brain did not originate with the rise of applications using various ChatGPT models.
I will copy & paste ChatGPT’s reply to the OP, just to confirm your BS diagnosis:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and the video featuring Stephen Fry reading Nick Cave’s letter. It’s an interesting perspective to consider the potential impact of advanced systems like ChatGPT on creativity.
I agree that while these systems are indeed powerful and have numerous applications, there are concerns about their influence on creativity. The essence of creativity often lies in the unpredictable, the novel, and the deeply human aspects that might be challenging for AI systems to fully replicate.
Nick Cave’s insights, as conveyed by Stephen Fry, add a valuable layer to this discussion. It prompts reflection on the role of AI in creative processes and the potential risk of relying too heavily on automated systems.
It’s essential to strike a balance between leveraging the capabilities of AI for efficiency and innovation while preserving and nurturing the unique, human touch that defines creativity. This dialogue around the impact of technology on creativity is crucial for shaping the responsible development and use of these advanced systems.
Thank you for bringing up this thought-provoking topic for discussion!
I find the last sentence particularly disgusting, almost snarky. The “thank you for bla bla blah” is also repugnant to me, specially when you realize that it has not watched the video at all. It is corporation speak for “ignore - and fuck you, consumer!” in my ears. 
Is there a policy on this board regarding the use of AI to generate answers? There are several topics related to AI, ChatGPT etc., but what if somebody always replied with a generated text? Would it make a difference if the user said so openly instead of doing it surrepticiously?
Forget about the last sentence. Does it matter whether that sort of bullshit non-answer is generated by an “AI” or entirely by a human? Will it gain credence either way?
It may not gain credence, but it might flood this board.
I thought the answer was perfectly fine. Shallow, but fine. You can work with it. And also obviously AI.
Yesterday I found myself on a “meaning of lyrics” site and there was a discussion where some lyrics were quoted and analyzed, and in the next paragraph, completely hallucinated lyrics. I was doubting myself for a bit, thinking maybe there’s another version, as this was supposedly written by a human, with a byline and brief bio of her and her masters degree and whatnot. Then the next paragraph, same thing. Completely made-up lyrics that didn’t sound anything like what the singer I was looking up would write, and quite counter to the meaning of the song.
This is the kind of stuff that really annoys me and will only prove to be more and more pervasive.
Very true, which is why the prospect of having a large corporation being able to profit from your style, work, or face in perpetuity without compensation or acknowledgment is kind of off putting for many.