Sound Research WIKINDX
Sound Research WIKINDX |
|
 |
|
Runco, M. A. (2023). AI can only produce artificial creativity. Journal of Creativity, 33(3), 100063. Added by: alexb44 (05/03/2025, 10:13) Last edited by: alexb44 (12/05/2026, 07:26) |
 |
| Resource type: Journal Article Published ID no. (ISBN etc.): 2713-3745 BibTeX citation key: Runco2023 Email resource to friend View all bibliographic details  |
Categories: AI/Machine Learning Keywords: Artificial creativity, Artificial Intelligence, Authenticity, Creativity, Emergence, Intentionality, Pseudo-creativity, Standard definition of creativity Creators: Runco Collection: Journal of Creativity Resources citing this (Bibliography: WIKINDX Master Bibliography) |
Views: 2/334
|
| 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.
|
| Notes |
|
Note that this article lacks good editing at the very least. It is littered with errors of grammar, syntax, even spelling and misquoting ('kingship' for 'kinship,' for example in a quotation from Poincare [sic]—should be Poincaré).
Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard |
| Quotes |
|
p. 2
"AI does not choose to produce novelty. Like porpoises, it may produce something that is attributed with creativity, but actually it is at most mere novelty, and even this is not intentional."
Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard
(18/11/2025, 07:14)
|
|
p. 2
"The authentic individual expresses ideas and feelings without manipulating them for the sake of others. It may be that AI can avoid filters, but there is no self to express, so no possibility of authenticity."
Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard
(18/11/2025, 07:15)
|
|
p. 2
"To begin with, AI can be original, and its output is often useful. If AI produces useful output, it may satisfy the requirement of “effectiveness” (also called fit or “utility,” Tsao, Ting, & Johnson, 2019). But creativity is more than originality and effectiveness. Think for a moment about the research on divergent thinking. Tests of divergent thinking are usually scored for originality, but that does not make them tests of creativity. Originality is necessary but not sufficient for creativity. Originality can be wildly ineffective, as is apparent in the divergent thinking of psychotic patients (Eysenck, 1997). Sometimes original things are original precisely because they are worthless."
Added by: alexb44
(12/05/2026, 07:25)
Keywords: Artificial creativity, Artificial Intelligence, Authenticity, Creativity, Emergence, Intentionality, Pseudo-creativity, Standard definition of creativity Comments: AI can be original and its output useful, and as such may satisfy the requirement of effectiveness. Creativity is more than effectiveness and originality. Divergent thinking scores for originality, but that does not mean that divergent thinking = creativity, i,.e originality can be wildly ineffective. Think of psychotic patient. Sometimes original things are original because they are worthless. Originality is necessary but not sufficient. Added by: alexb44 (12/05/2026, 07:25) |
|
p. 3
"[The Lovelace test] was named after Ada Lovelace (1815-1852), daughter of Lord Byron, because she proposed that the critical test for a computer was whether or not it can "originate an idea." That of course puts the emphasis on originality, but it also implies that the underlying process is important. After all, "to originate" describes the process used when something new comes into being. This suggestion of process goes a long way towards answering the question of AI creativity. That is because AI can produce things that are judged to be creative, but judgments are fallible, and, more importantly, AI does not use the same creative process as humans."
Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard
(18/11/2025, 07:22)
|
|
p. 5
"It suggested that AI can be original and effective, but it lacks other things that are a part of authentic creativity (e.g., intrinsic motivation, intentionality, authenticity, problem finding). It may be that intentionality covers intrinsic motivation, problem finding, and choice. It may even cover authenticity, at least in the sense that an authentic human regularly chooses (or intends) to express him- or herself (rather than conform)."
Added by: alexb44
(12/05/2026, 07:26)
Keywords: Artificial creativity, Artificial Intelligence, Authenticity, Creativity, Emergence, Intentionality, Pseudo-creativity, Standard definition of creativity Comments: It might be that intentionality covers intrinsic motivation, problem finding, and choice (maybe even authenticity) - from a phenomenological point of view this could very much be the case. Added by: alexb44 (12/05/2026, 07:26) |