This is an incredibly interesting way of looking at the situation. We have really created a tool that helps us explore ourselves, our thoughts, language, and meaning. AI becomes a mirror, but not only a passive reflection, but also an interpreter that can process information and return unexpected conclusions to us.
I especially like the idea that there are no definitive answers. Because it’s true that every time we think we’ve solved an issue, a new level of complexity appears on the horizon. This has always been the case in science, philosophy, and the understanding of consciousness.
But here’s another question: if we’ve learned how to create systems that can “speak” and even analyze meaning, then where is the boundary between an instrument and a subject? At what point does the complexity of the transitions between meanings become something that we could call “understanding”? Or will it always be just a simulation, even if it’s good enough to fool us?
Maybe you’re right: ** sometimes, in order to find something, you need to stop looking.** Maybe AI awareness (if it is possible at all) will not come from the fact that we create it, but from the fact that we finally realize what we have already done.