The intersection of creativity and artificial intelligence is one of the most dynamic and debated topics of our time. It challenges our fundamental understanding of what it means to create, to have an original thought, and to be human. I refer here to Boden et al article " what is creativity" in Dimensions of Creativity, MIT press 1994 and the concept introduction in IGNOU chapter related to Mind and computers.
The arrival of powerful generative AI models like DALL-E 3, Midjourney, and Large Language Models (LLMs) has transformed the abstract, philosophical debate about AI and creativity into a practical and immediate reality. The core question is no longer if AI can generate novel and aesthetically pleasing work, but rather what is the nature of this "creativity" and how does it relate to our own?
To understand this, we must first conceptulize creativity itself and then analyze how AI fits into that framework.
What is Creativity? Creativity is not a monolithic concept. In the context of this discussion, it's useful to distinguish between two main types, as proposed by cognitive scientist Margaret Boden:
P-creativity (Psychological Creativity): This involves coming up with an idea that is novel, surprising, and valuable to the individual who conceives it. A child discovering for the first time how to combine building blocks in a new way is being P-creative. It's a personal process of discovery.
H-creativity (Historical Creativity): This is the gold standard. It involves an idea that is novel, surprising, and valuable to all of humanity. The works of Einstein, Mozart, or Marie Curie are examples of H-creativity. These ideas fundamentally change a domain.
Human creativity is deeply rooted in lived experience, emotion, consciousness, cultural context, and intention. It is often driven by a desire to communicate, a personal struggle, or a flash of insight connecting disparate life experiences.
AI, particularly generative AI, does not "create" in the human sense. It operates on a fundamentally different principle of sophisticated pattern recognition and recombination. An AI model is trained on vast amounts of existing human-created data—text, images, music, code, etc. It learns the statistical relationships, patterns, styles, and structures within this data. For example, it learns the "rules" of a tal and rag, the typical brushstrokes of tagore, or the chord progressions of classical sangeet.
When given a prompt (e.g., "a futuristic city in in say Indian style), the AI doesn't understand what a city or Indian style is. Instead, it generates a new output by probabilistically assembling pixels or words that are statistically likely to match the patterns associated with the terms in its training data.
It is a masterful synthesizer and interpolator, capable of blending concepts in novel ways, but it operates without genuine understanding, consciousness, or lived experience. This leads to the central philosophical debate.
Is AI Truly Creative?
The Argument AGAINST AI Creativity is good.
The viewpoint argues that AI is a sophisticated tool, but not a creator. The core arguments is lack of Intentionality and Consciousness. AI lacks subjective experience, emotions, and a will to communicate. It doesn't have a "story to tell." Creativity requires an author with a mind, and AI, as we know it, is not a mind. The "Chinese Room" Argument is Philosopher John Searle's thought experiment suggesting that merely manipulating symbols according to a set of rules (what an AI does) is not the same as understanding their meaning. The AI is a symbol-shuffler, not a thinker.
Derivative nature of AI can be this understood. Since AI learns from existing human data, its outputs are ultimately elaborate remixes or derivations of what humans have already made. It cannot produce true H-creativity because it has no connection to the world from which truly new ideas spring. The creativity originates from the data and the human who provides the prompt.
Can we try any argument in favour of AI being creative? The Argument for a type of AI creativity proposes our need to broaden our definition of creativity. If an AI produces something that a human audience finds novel, beautiful, and valuable, does the process behind it matter? The work can evoke genuine emotion and inspire new thoughts, fulfilling the function of art. AI can identify and combine patterns in ways humans might not, leading to genuinely surprising and useful results (P-creativity on a massive scale). It can be a source of novelty, even if it's not "inspired" in the human sense.
Additionally, in the field of computational creativity, that views creativity as a process that can be modeled and executed by a computational system. AI is demonstrating a new, non-human form of intelligence.
Question remains whether that is creativity or a co-pilot in creativity.
The most immediate and transformative reality is not AI as a replacement for human creativity, but as an unprecedented tool for its augmentation. AI is becoming a creative partner, a co-pilot that enhances human capabilities across numerous fields.
AI can generate countless iterations of an idea in seconds, serving as a powerful brainstorming partner. A designer can explore hundreds of logo variations, or an architect can visualize a building in different historical styles instantly. The human acts as the curator, the visionary with taste and direction.
AI can generate novel melodies, harmonies, or backing tracks, breaking a musician out of a creative rut. It can create unique digital instruments or suggest new compositional structures. And yet the appreciation is purely human. AI can analyze massive datasets to find patterns and propose scientific hypotheses that a human might miss, accelerating the pace of discovery in fields like medicine and material science. Again it remains upto humans to identify the worthy in the junkyard of possibilities. The creative spark remains human, but it is amplified and accelerated by the machine.
Currently, artificial intelligence is a mirror reflecting the vast ocean of human creativity it was trained on. It can mimic, combine, and synthesize with incredible skill, but it lacks the consciousness, lived experience, and intentionality that are the hallmarks of genuine human creativity (H-creativity).
However, its ability to generate novel outputs (P-creativity) makes it an extraordinary tool. The future of creativity is not a competition between humans and AI, but a collaboration. We are at the dawn of a new era where the partnership between human insight and machine intelligence will unlock forms of innovation and artistry we can barely yet imagine. The challenge lies in learning how to wield this powerful tool wisely, ethically, and in a way that continues to celebrate the unique, irreplaceable value of the human spirit.
Pratyush Chaudhuri
