e13: Can AI really be creative?
September 27, 2023
18:30-19:30 CET (Europe) • 1:30-2:30 EST (North America, Eastern)
For our first meeting back after the summer holiday, we’ll be diving into a current hot topic for artists, scholars, and, well, everyone: Artificial Intelligence. Prominent creativity researcher Mark Runco sheds light on current discussions in a new paper, “AI Can Only Produce Artificial Creativity” (Runco, 2023). He considers the claim that AI can be creative alongside both the current standard definition of creativity and emerging theories which emphasize the processes behind human creativity (rather than the product). Ultimately, these processes are what distinguish human and artificial creativity, and, in light of this, Runco proposes updates to how we consider and define creativity.
It’s impossible to discuss AI without discussing it’s impact on human creative practices. AI is considered by many to be a threat to ‘true creativity’, while others see AI as a valuable tool, even a collaborator (check out the new manifesto from Vinchon et al in the Related Links below!). While we discuss whether AI can be creative, we can also consider the potential use, value, and/or danger of increasingly ‘creative’ AI models.
This meeting has passed, but we would love for you to join us next time!
📄 Runco (2023):
AI Can Only Produce Artificial Creativity. Journal of Creativity, 100063.
-
Other perspectives →
• Artificial Intelligence & Creativity: A Manifesto for Collaboration (Vinchon et al., 2023)
• Artificial Intelligence is More Creative Than Humans: A Cognitive Science Perspective on the Current State of Generative Language Models (Hubert, Awa, & Zabelina, 2023)
-
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.