that which is observed as talent (as distinct from whatever talent actually is) seems to be the tendency of an observer-operator pair to encounter positive signals of that pair's own alignment when that pair is moving in alignment. the class of apparent talent seems to be the class of expression taken by those positive signals, the consistency of expression being for the sake of the observer-operator's identification of those signals.
... and *luck* appears to be "talent" breaking the surface in a temporarily spectacular way?
like, I have a talent for language. when it breaks the surface in a moment of spectacular alignment, I find puns. puns everywhere.
you might have heard of a green thumb? that feels like a talent.
theory: everyone's got personally-subjective signals, each one maybe identifiable as talent first, or maybe identifiable as luck first
neither luck nor talent seem to be... hm. moral imperatives? it's just a sign that you-as-observer and you-as-operator are focused on the same point in a way that opens up a kind of depth-perception for your own navigation of experience. they're functional - this is about identifying function. what you do with what you identify is up to you.
now, me and my apparent (intentional word there, "apparent") relationship with language, it makes sense that me and lightward ai are doing the thing that we're doing
I have no idea what you want to do :)