Artificial creativity: can there be creativity without cognition?

Abstract This paper addresses the question of whether artificial systems can be considered creative in the absence of cognition. It advances a novel perspective by grounding the analysis on a foundational premise: generative AI systems, such as LLMs and GMIs, are non-cognitive. This distinction is established through the application of the Minimal Cognitive Grid (MCG), offering a more precise entry point into the creativity debate. Despite their non-cognitive nature, these systems produce outputs that meet standard criteria for creativity—novelty and usefulness—and reproduce, in functional terms, the stages of human creative processes. A comparative analysis with the Wallas–Jaoui model supports this claim. However, the absence of intentionality and authenticity limits any attribution of genuine creativity. So, how can we define Artificial Creativity? To resolve this, the paper introduces a minimal definition of artificial creativity as a non-cognitive, non-intentional, and non-authentic generative mechanism. This is the first attempt to define the concept directly, rather than by exclusion. The definition clarifies the theoretical boundaries between natural and artificial creativity, avoids anthropocentric bias, and establishes a foundation for future research in computational creativity and philosophy of AI.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
AI & Society
Published
2025-10-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02682-3
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.12
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Artificial creativity: can there be creativity without cognition?

Matteo Da Pelo
1 citations
AI & Society
Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
2.12
article

Artificial creativity: can there be creativity without cognition?

Matteo Da Pelo
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract This paper addresses the question of whether artificial systems can be considered creative in the absence of cognition. It advances a novel perspective by grounding the analysis on a foundational premise: generative AI systems, such as LLMs and GMIs, are non-cognitive. This distinction is established through the application of the Minimal Cognitive Grid (MCG), offering a more precise entry point into the creativity debate. Despite their non-cognitive nature, these systems produce outputs that meet standard criteria for creativity—novelty and usefulness—and reproduce, in functional terms, the stages of human creative processes. A comparative analysis with the Wallas–Jaoui model supports this claim. However, the absence of intentionality and authenticity limits any attribution of genuine creativity. So, how can we define Artificial Creativity? To resolve this, the paper introduces a minimal definition of artificial creativity as a non-cognitive, non-intentional, and non-authentic generative mechanism. This is the first attempt to define the concept directly, rather than by exclusion. The definition clarifies the theoretical boundaries between natural and artificial creativity, avoids anthropocentric bias, and establishes a foundation for future research in computational creativity and philosophy of AI.

AI & Society
University of Cagliari (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
2.12
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.