I believe this is wrong. I am certain that LLMs can - even now - produce texts that humsn readers will interpret as having true intent. It is not some magical quality that only humans may put into words.
The fact that texts by LLMs cannot be the result of true intent is another question. When reading a text, we are only guessing at its intent.
A friend said about AI-generated music: "AI can never be creative so the music will never be creative". I think that is a mistake. Like intent, creativity is not something intrinsic in the text/music, but a part of the consumers interpretation.
Interpret as having intent and having intent are not the same. If someone else writes something for me (human or AI) they are not going to use the exact words that I would have used. If I judiciously correct everything they type out for me so that it correctly expresses what I want to say, then sure, it has my intent, but that's not how people are using LLMs. They are lazily scanning its output at best.
Music and creativity is an entirely separate matter. I don't think LLMs can be truly creative because they're just mixing existing ideas from their training set. Which is also what humans do 99% of the time, but I like to believe that once in awhile humans have a truly original idea. This one is a bit harder to prove though.
Music is almost entirely unoriginal though. It's just sex, drugs, love, gangster BS. Basic primitive human stuff. AI should have no problem with that.
The fact that texts by LLMs cannot be the result of true intent is another question. When reading a text, we are only guessing at its intent.
A friend said about AI-generated music: "AI can never be creative so the music will never be creative". I think that is a mistake. Like intent, creativity is not something intrinsic in the text/music, but a part of the consumers interpretation.