I have a theory about AI (just like everyone else)

As someone who has used an absolute shit ton of AI, I'm not going to tell you that it's not impressive. It is. It is so impressive sometimes it scares me. There are times it's not impressive, and times it's sheer idiotic. All of that is true too. AI is great at solving well defined problems. It's great at it, and I think what we don't realize, or at least what I haven't realized, is how well defined most work actually is. Not to say that work is easy or that the designs are obvious, but that usually you can build processes around most work to make it somewhat routine. As a person who makes generators and focuses on the meta, I think it becomes apparent that if you use well defined structures you can configure them into all sorts of unique and programmatically solvable, generatable designs. The outcomes can be quite impressive, so great that they boggle the mind. Common pieces become more than their parts. But my question is this: are truly unique problems always directly built on what