AI’s growing presence in creative fields is reshaping traditional models of artistic and intellectual production, prompting deeper reflection on the nature and future of human creativity. Photo: IC PHOTO

---

AI can generate a song in the style of The Beatles, but could it ever compose something like “Hey Jude?” Manuel B. Garcia’s answer is a firm “never.” He explained, “‘Hey Jude’ wasn’t just a sequence of musical notes—it was a deeply personal message from Paul McCartney to John Lennon’s son during a difficult time.”

AI’s growing presence in creative fields is reshaping traditional models of artistic and intellectual production, prompting deeper reflection on the nature and future of human creativity. To explore issues such as the definition of creativity, AI’s impact on human innovation, and whether AI itself can be considered creative, CSST interviewed Garcia, a professor of Information Technology at the FEU Institute of Technology in Manila, the Philippines, and David Cropley, a professor of Engineering Innovation at the University of South Australia.

Defining and measuring creativity

“Creativity is one of those things that’s hard to put in a box,” claimed Garcia. “At its core, creativity is about coming up with new, valuable, and meaningful ideas. It’s not just about making something look different but making something resonate—whether that’s an artwork, a piece of music, or even a new way to solve a problem.” 

When it comes to measuring creativity, Garcia referenced the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, which assess a person’s ability to think outside the box. Psychologists often evaluate divergent thinking—the capacity to generate multiple distinct ideas—while neurologists may examine patterns of brain activity. 

“Creativity is contextual,” he added. “A chef, a scientist, and a novelist all express it in different ways.” 

Cropley described creativity as a complex interplay of cognitive processes (how we think), attitudes and dispositions (how we feel), and environmental factors (where we live and work). “If these three elements function in concert, then we maximize our ability to generate creative products—whether ideas, solutions, or artistic works.”

“Measuring human creativity follows similar lines to the definition,” Cropley explained. “We can measure the thinking associated with creativity (especially divergent thinking), we can measure the attitudes and dispositions known to be related to creativity (e.g., openness, risk-taking), we can measure the environment (e.g., the workplace climate) and finally, we can measure the creative products that result (especially, assessing how novel and effective they are).”

AI’s complex impact on creativity

Discussing the relationship between AI and human creativity, Cropley told CSST that AI can enhance human creativity by streamlining certain stages of the creative process. “For example, once a problem has been clearly defined, a key stage of creativity is generating possible solution ideas. AI has the potential to assist in activities like brainstorming. If AI can help us uncover creative ideas more quickly, then that is a positive benefit.”

“AI is an amazing collaborator,” Garcia said. “It’s like having an assistant who never gets tired, never runs out of ideas, and doesn’t mind generating 100 versions of something just so you can find the right one. It can help generate ideas, refine concepts, and even push artists beyond their usual styles by suggesting combinations they might never have thought of.”

Yet, while AI has the potential to enhance human creativity, both scholars cautioned that its impact is more complex. A study conducted by Michael Gerlich, head of the Center for Strategic Corporate Foresight and Sustainability at SBS Swiss Business School, found a significant negative correlation between frequent AI tool use and critical thinking skills, mediated by increased cognitive offloading.

“There is emerging evidence that over-reliance on AI tools may impact critical thinking,” Cropley echoed. “In fact, some of my own recent research suggests a similar problem with using AI to support a creative activity such as brainstorming. We found that using high creativity AI suggestions in a brainstorming task did not improve human brainstorming over and above what the humans did by themselves. However, if the AI suggestions were actually low in creativity, then the AI suggestions led to lower creativity in the humans.”

Cropley emphasized that AI assistance is more complex than simply delegating parts of a task to AI. While, in theory, AI should be able to enhance certain aspects of human creativity, the actual impact depends on how people interact with and utilize these tools. He pointed out that human habits and behaviors play a crucial role in determining whether AI support is beneficial. If used uncritically, AI tools may fail to provide meaningful advantages. Given these complexities, Cropley stressed the need for further research to better understand how humans can maximize the benefits of AI in creative processes.

“In short, there is the theoretical ‘what could be done’ but also the reality of ‘what actually happens when humans use it!’ There’s no discrepancy here. AI can assist, provided we use it wisely,” he added. 

Garcia described this phenomenon as a classic case of “use it or lose it,” warning that excessive reliance on AI could weaken the cognitive faculties essential for critical thinking and creativity. He compared it to overdependence on GPS, which, while convenient, can erode a person’s ability to navigate independently. While AI tools undoubtedly make life easier, he cautioned that their convenience might come at the cost of diminished mental engagement—“Convenient? Absolutely. Good for brain function? Not so much.”

“But here’s the nuance: AI itself isn’t the problem—it’s how we use it. If we let AI do all the thinking for us, of course our critical thinking skills will atrophy. But if we use AI as a thinking partner rather than a thinking replacement, we get the best of both worlds,” said Garcia. 

AI generation v.s. human creation

In Cropley’s view, while AI can uncover statistically rare combinations of existing ideas—allowing for incremental creativity—it cannot produce truly original concepts. In other words, since it operates within the confines of its training data, it is incapable of radical creativity.

“Any real creativity that is present in an AI story or image comes from the creativity of the prompt entered by the human,” Cropley emphasized. AI’s output tends to be an “average” of the data it was trained on. If it has studied thousands of human-written stories, what it produces will essentially be a distilled version of common storytelling patterns.

By contrast, humans can make unexpected, even illogical, creative leaps. Unlike AI, which operates within probabilistic constraints, human thought is not bound by statistical modeling, Cropley explained. Any job that involves finding new solutions to new problems, usually resulting from change, requires creativity. Not only that, but creativity also begins with defining what the problem is, and ends with humans deciding whether or not the solution is satisfactory. This means that creativity can only begin, and end, with human decisions and inputs.

Moreover, Cropley noted that generative AI is prone to errors, including hallucinations, calling for human oversight of any AI-generated output. “Any job that involves change, problem solving, and the ability to define problems and evaluates solutions, needs, at its core, humans,” he reiterated. 

From the perspective of experience and emotion, Garcia stressed that while AI-generated content can be technically impressive—whether writing poetry, composing music, or painting landscapes—it lacks intention. AI does not create because it has something to express; it creates simply because it has been prompted to do so.

“AI is a great chef, but it doesn’t know what food tastes like,” he explained. “It has never experienced joy, heartbreak, or nostalgia, and it certainly doesn’t know what it’s like to hear a song and suddenly be transported back to childhood. It lacks intuition,” Garcia remarked. It can remix existing ideas but does not have the spontaneous “aha!” moments that arise from personal experience. Moreover, while the best works of art, literature, and music often come from creators who take risks, AI operates within predefined rules and does not know when—or why—to break them. 

“So, AI enhances creativity, but it doesn’t own it. It’s like a high-tech paintbrush—it still takes an artist to make a masterpiece,” he added. 

Commenting on the fear that AI will take human jobs, Garcia stated: “I get it—AI is scary when it feels like it’s creeping into every industry. But history tells us something important: technology doesn’t replace creativity—it shifts it. When photography was invented, people thought painting would die. When synthesizers became mainstream, people thought traditional music was doomed. But what happened? Artists adapted, and new art forms emerged.”

“The same applies here,” he continued. “AI can handle repetitive tasks, but it doesn’t have imagination. The key is learning how to work with AI, not against it.” He encouraged artists and writers to explore AI as a tool to enhance their workflow rather than replace their voice. “Think of AI like a power tool—it makes things faster and more efficient, but the skill still comes from the person using it,” Garcia said. While AI may change jobs, it will not erase creativity, because creativity is not just a task—it is a mindset.

‘Embracing this moment’

“We’re in the middle of a cultural redefinition of creativity itself. And whether we embrace it or resist it, one thing is clear: AI isn’t replacing artists—it’s forcing us to rethink what it means to be one,” Garcia asserted. 

In this context, he advocates for treating AI as a collaborator—more like a “thinking gym” than a crutch—using it to expand perspectives rather than replacing critical thinking. “Instead of just consuming AI-generated content, reverse-engineer it. Why did AI suggest this solution? What would I change? Engaging with AI critically keeps the mind sharp.” He emphasized the importance of delegating only repetitive tasks to AI while preserving human agency in problem-solving, decision-making, and creativity: “Offload the grunt work, not the thinking work.”

Garcia also urged schools and workplaces to focus on teaching how to use AI without losing intellectual autonomy. The goal, he stressed, isn’t to ban AI but to cultivate “augmented intelligence”—where AI boosts human cognition rather than replaces it.

“Let’s embrace this moment—not with fear, but with curiosity, innovation, and above all, the human spirit that makes creativity so powerful in the first place,” Garcia appealed.

Edited by CHEN MIRONG