AI can only produce artificial creativity

Abstract

This article (a) draws from various theories of creativity (e.g., 4P and 6P theories) and (b) uses several concepts from the creativity literature (e.g., self-actualization, emergence) to evaluate the claim that AI can be creative. This approach suggests that, at most, the output of AI represents products which, although lacking, may be attributed with creativity. Such attributions are often mistaken, and, significantly, products say little about the underlying process. Indeed, criticisms previously leveled at the view that the social recognition of products is required of creativity also apply to AI output. Several examples of products and overt actions that have been mistakenly attributed with creativity are discussed. The most telling of these is the ostensible emergence by a machine. The conclusion is that it makes no sense to refer to “creative AI.” One alternative is to extend the concept of “artificial intelligence” to creativity, which gives us “artificial creativity” as the label for what computers can do. Artificial creativity may be original and effective but it lacks several things that characterize human creativity. Thus it may be the most accurate to recognize that the output of AI as a kind of pseudo-creativity.