In your example, the "come up with your own story" part is the creative part. But you're not "directing" the AI to generate it for you. You're just giving it a command. You're selecting from the results it outputs, but you're not controlling the output.

A film director is a creative. Ultimately, they are in charge of "visualizing" a screenplay": the setting, the the design of the set or the utilization of real locations, the staging of the actors within a scene, the "direction" of the actors (i.e., how they should act out dialog or a scene, lighting, the cinematography, the use of stunts, staging shots to accommodate the use of VFX, the editing (meaning, the actual footage that comprises the movie).

There's an old show on HBO, Project Greenlight, that demonstrates what a director does. They give 2 directors the same screenplay and budget and they make competing movies. The competing movies are always completely different...even though they scripts are the same. (In the most extreme example from one of the later seasons, one of the movies was a teen grossout comedy, and the competing movie was some sort of adult melodrama.)

So 1. being able to bring your own story come to life automatically is cool in itself, and would result in a lot of creative media that is not possible now. Do you know how many people have their own stories, plays, etc that are dying to find someone rich enough to get them published?

2. Using AI can be can be an iterative process. Generate this scene, make this look like that, make it brighter colors, remove this, add this, etc. That's all carefully crafting the output. Now generate this second scene, make the transition this way, etc. I don't see how that's at all different from a director giving their commands to workers, except now you actually have more creative control (given AI gets good enough)

1. We already have that now, it's called Word. Most people are just too lazy to write out their story. AI doesn't improve the situation, it makes it worse. It will become vastly harder to find the good stuff in the avalanche of crap.

2. Current AI can't do what you're describing, so the biggest difference is that you're posing a hypothetical against the real world. But more specifically: the director already has a specific vision in their hand; the purpose of the "direction" is to bring this vision into reality within the scope of their budget and resources. With AI, you have a general idea and the AI creates its own vision and you pick what you like the best, until you ultimately realize the AI isn't going to get what you actually want and you settle for the best the AI can do for you. So, completely different.

>But you're not "directing" the AI to generate it for you. You're just giving it a command.

That's what direction is though. Film directors prompt their actors and choose the results they like best (among many other commands to many other groups)

>You're selecting from the results it outputs, but you're not controlling the output.

The prompt controls the output (and I bet you'd have more control over the AI than you'd have over a drunk Marlon Brando)