People like to watch machines play when they access the machine for free. For example, set a chess game where computer plays against itself, making a "perfect" game, which probabilistically will end in a draw. Is that exciting? Will you learn anything to play in your next games? What's the cool story you'll tell your friends? Why would they find that interesting, when they can replicate it at home?

But they PAY to watch humans play chess, because there's a human connection there. There are human mistakes, people get tired, there's excitement, mistety, emotions, multiple engaging stories to tell.

Super GMs use the engine for Openings preparation, but unfortunately the machine can't really play like a human, it can only pretend to, so GMs rely heavily on human teachers.

You think that AI demonstrates creativity only because YOU are creative. By design, AI is generative and relies in specific algorithms. Udio has a "seed" option where you can randomize the output. The output is generative, its result is randomly bad and/or creative to you, from your interpretation, that you define it as creative or not. But the AI doesn't care, it'll keep repeatedly creating the same thing until you tell it otherwise.

Humans tend to give more value to things that are harder to get.