For example, humans started making computer games, but there were no computer games before, and now we have all these genres and stuff. Humans are capable of doing creative novel works from nothing. So you personally might be an uncreative automaton who just copies what others said or did, but that isn't normal, other humans can think in novel ways.
If you mention Pong or Spacewar, you've already lost. Table tennis and the Lensman books, respectively.
Literally anything humans do is based on prior influences, referents and data. There's no aether out of which the "spark" of inspiration strikes, nor does anything emerge from the pure vaccuum, creativity is just neurons doing what they will with the information they already have. Therefore the only difference between human genius and the mediocre output of AIs is complexity, and the only question worth asking is how far that gap can reasonably be bridged.
It's understandable that this is upsetting, because it threatens one of the last bastions of human divinity, and no one really wants to believe human beings in all their splendor, subtlety and complexity are just a pile of ad-hoc stochastic wetware algorithms running on a hemisphere of gelatinous goo, no more divine than a stone on the ground, but eventually as this technology matures we're going to have to come to terms with the fact that creativity can be manufactured, just like anything else, and like anything manufactured, its quality will inevitably surpass anything humans are capable of.
Humans are capable of being creative similarly to how the Go AI is capable of being creative, statistical AI's that just copies doesn't seem to be capable of such creativity.
Angry Birds: "a sketch of stylized wingless birds[1]", apparently, and games using that basic physics go back ages, and are inspired by cannon warfare[2]
Snake: all Snake games are based on Blockade, published by Gremlin industries, where I found this[3] on an interesting site HN might like
"[Lane Hauck] While we were designing wall games, I was tinkering in the back room with a video circuit that became our Blockade game board. I kept showing my work to Frank Fogleman and Jerry, pestering them with the “can we get into video now?” question. I made a 32x24 cell frame buffer with graphical characters. I was intrigued by the random walk in Physics…which said a drunk taking steps in random directions around a lamppost would gravitate to the lamppost. I decided to program an arrow to be the drunk, and watched it flit around the screen for about a minute before getting bored. Then I thought, what if the drunk can’t visit the same square twice? I made that adjustment, and watched the arrow move a bit and then get trapped. The step from there to Blockade was a small one. (Hauck 2012)"
[1] https://www.cleverism.com/why-angry-birds-got-successful/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery_game
[3] http://allincolorforaquarter.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-ultima...
Which begs the question: why would individuals intentionally diminish the own status when there is nothing much objective to support it?
I guess it is for them to answer this, but what I would volunteer as a possibility is the enormous power of collective mental models / narratives. By adopting the "brain is a computer" narrative you become member (or aspired to become) of a certain social group that, incidentally, has been "winning" in a certain socio-economic context.
We have a very similar algorithm to AI for creating 'new' things, that never really strays from our data sets.