Artificial Intelligence, Creativity, and Intentionality

The Need for a Paradigm Shift

Bibliographic Data

ID21345401
AuthorsFrancisco Tigre Moura (0000-0003-4699-7582, IU University of Applied Sciences, corresponding author)
Year2023
Volume57
Issue3
Pages336-338
Publication date2023-09-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueThe Journal of Creative Behavior (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0022-0175 • E-ISSN: 2162-6057
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/jocb.585
OpenAlexW4362608589
LanguageEN
Citations received9
References cited10

Applying artificial intelligence (AI) to generate creative and valuable outputs is far from a novel concept (Boden, 1998; Cope, 1989). However, only in recent years have we witnessed large scale release and adoption of AI tools capable of generating high-quality content in written, image, video, and sound formats (Anantrasirichai & Bull, 2022). The fast adoption of these tools, and the autonomous nature of the process that generates such outputs, challenges well-rooted paradigms, especially in creative sectors such as the arts. As consequence, it calls for a discussion and reconsideration of existing concepts and assumptions. Intentionality and creativity, for example, have long been deemed as unique to humans, and central to the understanding of our specie. While intentionality has often been described as “an expression of the presence of creative factors in the processes of intellectual cognition” (Gondek, 2021, p.420), creativity is described as the skill of creating ideas or artifacts that are new, valuable, and surprising (Boden, 2004). Both concepts are intrinsically interrelated and pivotal for understanding humans. For this reason, they have been largely researched through various psychological perspectives, including cognition, personality, emotions, and motivation. However, creative AI systems are now capable of independently generating outputs which are indistinguishable from the ones developed solely by humans. They also allow for various co-creation possibilities (Miller, 2019). Thus, AI should be perceived as a tool, a co-creative partner, and as an independent creator (Elgammal, 2019). However, the data-centered and autonomous nature of smart systems conflicts with our understanding and expectation of human intentionality in creative tasks. Therefore, we must reconsider current assumptions to account for the ever-increasing role of AI in creative processes. I defend that the current and future scenario calls for a new paradigm, one which considers intentionality in the synergetic co-creative relationships between humans and AI as equally genuine as the ones not using them. Thus, one where AI is seen as an enabler that allows humans to potentialize their expression of motives and intent. Finally, a paradigm that also recognizes the increasing intentionality of algorithms. The manifestation of human intentionality in creative tasks has often been viewed as a conscious attempt to express genuine aspirations, emotions, and motives. Especially in the creative and artistic sectors, the subjective value of human expressions is highly influenced by the skill or expertise required to conduct the task necessary to express the desired intent (e.g., ability to play an instrument, writing or painting technique). Thus, the creative process to manifest an intent has always been deemed as of great relevance (Kozbelt, 2004). However, with the increased popularity, accuracy, and ease of use of AI tools, the expertise required for creative tasks is drastically reduced, and often, no longer required. For example, one does not need to understand music theory or master the ability to play an instrument to “compose” a novel, surprising and beautiful song. AI has therefore democratized the “ability” to generate creative outputs that expresses anyone's aspirations, emotions, and thoughts. In view of our current paradigms, the use of AI tools during creative processes may negatively impact the perceived human intentionality, consequently reducing the value of outputs. I defend that it should not. Regardless of its “intelligent” nature, AI should be seen as a tool that augments human creativity. In view of their ease of use, AI tools also motivate “non-creatives” to express intrinsic intents through artificial co-creation. In short, AI will help disseminate creative acts and generate an abundance of creative outputs. AI must then be seen as a facilitator for human expression, regardless of if it is accompanied by creative skill or expertise. Consequently, its use should not compromise the perceived intentionality of creatives. A new creative paradigm should focus then mainly on the intrinsic motives of creation, and less on the process conducted to express the desired intent. This assumption is grounded on the fact that advances in AI will reach extreme accuracy, ease of use and availability. In view of their unquestionable value, global acceptance and adoption are easily predictable. In short, soon most humans will augment their creativity with the support of AI. Surely, the manifestation of human intentionality without the support of AI agents will also continue to exist, and the choice of creative process will continue to be defined by creators (e.g., to write a poem without AI assistance, though artificial co-creation or to fully automate the process and simply supervise the output). However, AI already generates outputs which are indistinguishable from human made ones (Hadjeres, Pachet, & Nielsen, 2017; Tigre Moura & Maw, 2021). This implies that it is and will become even more challenging to assure the nature of a creative process. The notion of a creative process will be based on trust between the creator (informing how the creative output was made) and the receiver (believing the creator or not). Furthermore, a new a paradigm should also consider the intentionality of intelligent systems (Kurt, 2018; Mikalonytė & Kneer, 2021). Although the belief of recognizing intentionality in artificial intelligence has been previously discussed (Zhu, 2009), it is still largely rejected, especially in artistic sectors. But AI holds a form of intentionality in a broader sense, as it is often engineered to develop specific goals and objectives, which express, for example, views of coders and organizations. With the fast adoption of AI tools, this discussion is expected to become a focal point within creative industries and influence the acceptance of artificially created or co-created outputs. As the adoption of AI enhances, there will likely be a concern regarding the potential loss of human exclusivity in the realm of creativity. The mastery of creative skills has been valued as a mark of distinction and achievement, providing a sense of purpose and fulfillment for humans. Thus, to lose this exclusivity is not simply a matter of embracing new technological advancements, but also of rethinking and redefining deeply held beliefs about human nature and identity. It represents a serious challenge to current creatives, which will most likely be initially resistant to accepting a new creative paradigm where anyone mastering AI tools may also be perceived as creative. Consequently, future studies should develop cross-cultural, cross-industry and demographical investigation of pull and push factors in the adoption of AI tools, while relating it the sense of identity in being a creative. Also, the ever-increasing collaboration between humans and AI calls for new ethical and legal frameworks. For example, regarding intellectual property (Palace, 2019), authorship (Hristov, 2016), and responsibility for creative outputs (Karliuk, 2018). These issues (simply to name a few) are complex, still largely unresolved, and raises additional questions involving creativity and the authenticity of creative intentionality. With the expected exponential increase of content generated by human-AI collaboration in the coming years, such discussions will become even more critical. In view of the relevance and urgency of the matter, future research must address the existing (and ever developing) ethical and legal implications of AI use during creative tasks, and its impact on perceived creative intentionality. Finally, technology has always been a fundamental driver of societal change, and the type and magnitude of the impact it causes to existing dynamics and paradigms often leads to various forms of resistance during its adoption process (Juma, 2016). However, the speed of changes triggered by AI is unprecedented. And as it is well-established, exposure is one of the fundamental factors to human desensitization to new technologies. So, although some of the assumptions of a new paradigm might currently be perceived as ludicrous to some (e.g., intentionality of non-creatives co-creating with AI, or the intentionality of algorithms), their wide acceptance might happen much earlier than expected. Future research on creativity must address the basis of this paradigm shift throughout different sectors and levels of human involvement with technology. It must also permanently consider and adapt to the ever-evolving technological advancements and the effects of adoption on human desensitization towards it. Importantly, it must strengthen the investigation of intentionality of autonomous systems and artificial co-creation. This agenda is pivotal to provide reasoning to the enormous changes, and perceived uncertainty, caused by the nature and fast adoption of artificial intelligence in creative tasks. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This commentary poses no conflict of interest. There was no funding involved. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study

Cognitive psychology · Cognitive science · Creativity · Epistemology · Intentionality · Paradigm shift · Aesthetic Perception and Analysis · Creativity in Education and Neuroscience · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology · Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access