Sound Research WIKINDX
Sound Research WIKINDX |
|
 |
|
Runco, M. A. (2025). Updating the standard definition of creativity to account for the artificial creativity of AI. Creativity Research Journal, 37(1), 1–5. Added by: alexb44 (06/03/2025, 06:53) Last edited by: alexb44 (12/05/2026, 05:11) |
 |
| Resource type: Journal Article Published BibTeX citation key: Runco2025 Email resource to friend View all bibliographic details  |
Categories: AI/Machine Learning Keywords: Artificial creativity, Artificial Intelligence, Creativity, Intentionality Creators: Runco Collection: Creativity Research Journal |
Views: 6/413
|
| Abstract |
|
"Recent developments in AI compel an update of the “standard definition of creativity.” This short article cites various proposed additions to the standard definition, which point to Surprise, Value, Authenticity, and Intentionality. The latter two are the most useful when distinguishing human from artificial (machine) creativity. Artificial creativity can be contrasted with pseudo-creativity as well as human creativity. Artificial creativity may be the best way to describe the output from AI. Even when that output is original and effective, it lacks the authenticity and intentionality that is apparent in human creativity."
Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard |
| Notes |
|
See his previous article (Runco & Jaeger 2012). Note also that a fair bit of this appears to be cut and paste from his previous article (Runco 2023). . . Summary:Examines the evolving definition of creativity in light of AI. Traditionally, the Standard Definition of Creativity (SDC) has relied on two key criteria: originality and effectiveness. Recent developments in AI challenge this definition, as AI-generated content often meets these criteria yet lacks certain fundamental qualities associated with human creativity. Runco proposes that two additional dimensions—authenticity and intentionality—should be integrated into the SDC to distinguish human creativity from artificial creativity. Authenticity is highlighted as a crucial factor, as AI-generated outputs are inherently derivative, relying entirely on pre-existing data. Likewise, intentionality is essential, as human creativity involves problem-finding and decision-making, whereas AI merely processes and reorganizes information without self-initiated creative intent. The article underscores that while AI can produce novel and useful outputs, these should be classified as "artificial creativity" rather than equated with human creativity. Runco argues that AI-generated creativity lacks the self-awareness, personal expression, and emergent originality that define human creative processes. He also draws parallels to legal and psychological concepts of intent, reinforcing that creativity is not merely a matter of generating new combinations but involves conscious purpose (he highlights the importance of the process itself). Updating the SDC to include authenticity and intentionality is essential to maintaining a meaningful distinction between human and artificial creativity, ensuring that discussions about AI’s capabilities remain precise and conceptually rigorous. Note Runco misuses (pehneomenologically speaking) intentionality to mean conscious intent or intention (decision-making). See (Merleau-Ponty 2014/1945). Questions:
Merleau-Ponty, M. (2014). Phenomenology of perception. D. A. Landes, Trans. New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1945). |
| Quotes |
|
p. 1
"The debate about the best definition of creativity has recently gained urgency. That is because there are claims that AI is creative. AI may in fact qualify as creative according to the SDC, but at the same time there are compelling reasons to question the creativity of AI. This in turn implies that it may be time to update the SDC."
Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard
(18/11/2025, 08:59)
|