AI’s Role in Creative Processes: A Functionalist Approach

A non-anthropocentric notion

Keywords: creativity, artificial intelligence, anthropocentric bias, AI-generated art, GAN, AI fairness


From 1950 onwards, the study of creativity has not stopped. Today, AI has revitalised debates on the subject. That is especially controversial in the artworld, as the 21st century already features AI-generated artworks. Without discussing issues about AI agency, this article argues for AI’s creativity. For this, we first present a new functionalist understanding of Margaret Boden’s definition of creativity. This is followed by an analysis of empirical evidence on anthropocentric barriers in the perception of AI’s creative capabilities, which is later criticised for considering insights from media theory. Finally, benefits derived from including AI as an artistic creative producer and supportive tool are discussed. It is then argued that AI can contribute to democratising the artworld. Therefore its creative role must be recognised.

Author Biographies

Leonardo Arriagada, PhD (c) University of Groningen and Universidad de Chile
Leonardo Salvador Arriagada Beltrán (Chile, 1986) holds a PhD (c) from the University of Groningen, a PhD (c) in Philosophy with a major in Aesthetics and Art Theory from the University of Chile, and an MA in Contemporary Thought: Philosophy and Political Thought from the Universidad Diego Portales. He is a scholarship holder of the Chilean National Agency for Research and Development (ANID). He is a member of the Netherlands Research School for Literary Studies (OSL). At the Nederland Digitaal 2021 Conference, he was awarded by the Dutch State Secretary for Economic Affairs and Climate Change—Mona Keijzer—with the Noorden Digitaal Talent Award for Best Discovery and the People's Choice Award. He is currently an ambassador for this distinction. He investigates aesthetically computer-generated art (CG-art) defending the thesis that Artificial Intelligence (AI) can create art. In Chile, he has been awarded projects from the National Fund for Cultural Development and the Arts (FONDART). He strives to disseminate his ideas beyond scientific articles, participating in events open to the general public.  
Gabriela Arriagada-Bruneau, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
Gabriela Arriagada Bruneau is an Assistant Professor at the Instituto de Éticas Aplicadas (IEA UC) and the Instituto de Matemática Computacional (IMC UC) of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. She is a young researcher at the National Center for Artificial Intelligence (CENIA) and Latin America Lead for the World Ethical Data Foundation (WEDF). She has a Bachelor's degree in Philosophy from the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a Master of Science in Philosophy from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and a PhD candidate at the University of Leeds, England. She is also the Director of Applied Ethics at the think tank ‘Pensar en red’ in Chile. Her main research areas are Applied Ethics, which focuses on fairness, bias, explainability, and trustworthiness. Her current research is dedicated to reframing the problem of bias in data science. She is also interested in feminist perspectives applied to disruptive technologies and the problems of the digital divide, particularly in Latin America.


Amabile, T. (1983). The Social Psychology of Creativity. Springer-Verlag.
Arriagada, L. (2020). CG-Art: Demystifying the anthropocentric bias of artistic creativity. Connection Science, 32(4), 398–405.
Arriagada, L. (2021). Artistas mecánicos: Una mirada a la capacidad estética de máquinas y algoritmos desde la música pop y el pop art. Calle 14 revista de investigación en el campo del arte, 16(29), 54–66.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, Intelligence, and Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32(1), 439–476.
Bartneck, C., Lütge, C., Wagner, A., & Welsh, S. (2021). Trust and Fairness in AI Systems. In C. Bartneck, C. Lütge, A. Wagner, & S. Welsh (Eds.), An Introduction to Ethics in Robotics and AI (pp. 27–38). Springer International Publishing.
Boden, M. (2004). The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. Routledge.
Boden, M. (2017). Is deep dreaming the new collage? Connection Science, 29(4), 268–275.
Brewer, M. B. (2001). Ingroup identification and intergroup conflict: When does ingroup love become outgroup hate? In Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction (pp. 17–41). Oxford University Press.
Bunz, M. (2007). La utopía de la copia: El pop como irritación (C. Pavón, Trans.). Interzona.
Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67(6), 380–400.
Cetinic, E., & She, J. (2021). Understanding and Creating Art with AI: Review and Outlook. ArXiv:2102.09109 [Cs].
Chamberlain, R., Mullin, C., Scheerlinck, B., & Wagemans, J. (2018). Putting the art in artificial: Aesthetic responses to computer-generated art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(2), 177–192.
Colton, S. (2008). Creativity Versus the Perception of Creativity in Computational Systems. In AAAI Spring Symposium—Technical Report (p. 20).
Corazza, G. E. (2016). Potential Originality and Effectiveness: The Dynamic Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 258–267.
Dickie, G. (1969). Defining Art. American Philosophical Quarterly, 6(3), 253–256. JSTOR.
Dickie, G. (1997). Art: Function or Procedure: Nature or Culture? The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 55(1), 19.
Elgammal, A., Liu, B., Elhoseiny, M., & Mazzone, M. (2017). CAN: Creative Adversarial Networks, Generating ‘Art’ by Learning About Styles and Deviating from Style Norms.
Epstein, Z., Levine, S., Rand, D. G., & Rahwan, I. (2020). Who Gets Credit for AI-Generated Art? IScience, 23(9).
Fontanille, J. (2018, May 7). Interacción ser humano/máquina. 12a escuela Chile-Francia, Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Chile.
Gabora, L., & Kaufman, S. B. (2019). Evolutionary Approaches to Creativity. ArXiv:1106.3386 [q-Bio].
Gaut, B. (2010). The Philosophy of Creativity. Philosophy Compass, 5(12), 1034–1046.
Giacomello, E., Lanzi, P. L., & Loiacono, D. (2018). DOOM Level Generation Using Generative Adversarial Networks. 2018 IEEE Games, Entertainment, Media Conference (GEM), 316–323.
Goodfellow, I. J., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., & Bengio, Y. (2014). Generative Adversarial Networks. ArXiv:1406.2661 [Cs, Stat].
Google Arts & Culture. (2019). Anna Ridler: Can datasets create art? - Barbican Centre. Google Arts & Culture.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454.
Hertzmann, A. (2018). Can Computers Create Art? Arts, 7(2), 18.
Hertzmann, A. (2020). Computers do not make art, people do. Communications of the ACM, 63(5), 45–48.
Hong, J.-W. (2018). Bias in Perception of Art Produced by Artificial Intelligence. In M. Kurosu (Ed.), Human-Computer Interaction. Interaction in Context (pp. 290–303). Springer International Publishing.
Hsu, H. (2019, May 20). Machine Yearning. The New Yorker, 95(13), 83–84.
Jefferson, G. (1949). The Mind of Mechanical Man. British Medical Journal, 1(4616), 1105–1110.
Jennings, K. E. (2010). Developing Creativity: Artificial Barriers in Artificial Intelligence. Minds and Machines, 20(4), 489–501.
Kasy, M., & Abebe, R. (2021). Fairness, Equality, and Power in Algorithmic Decision-Making. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 576–586.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12.
Kelly, S. D. (2019). A philosopher argues that an AI can’t be an artist. MIT Technology Review.
Knight, W. (2017). 35 Innovators Under 35, Inventors: Ian Goodfellow. MIT Technology Review.
Kohs, G. (2017, September 29). AlphaGo [Documentary, Sport]. Moxie Pictures, Reel As Dirt.
Lawson, C. (2010). Technology and the Extension of Human Capabilities. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40(2), 207–223.
MacKinnon, D. W. (1966). What makes a person creative? Theory Into Practice, 5(4), 151–156.
Mazzone, M., & Elgammal, A. (2019). Art, Creativity, and the Potential of Artificial Intelligence. Arts, 8(1), 26.
McCormack, J., Gifford, T., & Hutchings, P. (2019). Autonomy, Authenticity, Authorship and Intention in Computer Generated Art. In A. Ekárt, A. Liapis, & M. L. Castro Pena (Eds.), Computational Intelligence in Music, Sound, Art and Design (pp. 35–50). Springer International Publishing.
McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. MIT Press.
Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2019). A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning. USC, Information Sciences Institute.
Miller, A. (2019). The Artist in the Machine: The World of AI-Powered Creativity (Kindle ed.). MIT Press.
Miller, A. (2020). Creativity in the Age of AI: Computers and artificial neural networks are redefining the relationship between art and science. American Scientist, 108(4), 244–250.
Moffat, D. C., & Kelly, M. (2006). An investigation into people’s bias against computational creativity in music composition. Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Workshop on Computational Creativity. ECAI06 Workshop.
Mori, M. (2012). The Uncanny Valley [From the Field] (K. F. MacDorman & N. Kageki, Trans.). IEEE Robotics Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–100.
Moruzzi, C. (2020a). Artificial Creativity and General Intelligence. Journal of Science and Technology of the Arts, 12(3), 84–99.
Moruzzi, C. (2020b). Learning through creativity: How creativity can help machine learning achieving deeper understanding. Rivista Italiana Di Filosofia Del Linguaggio, 14(2).
Moruzzi, C. (2021). Measuring creativity: An account of natural and artificial creativity. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11(1), 20.
Novitz, D. (1999). Creativity and Constraint. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 77(1), 67–82.
Ragot, M., Martin, N., & Cojean, S. (2020). AI-generated vs. Human Artworks. A Perception Bias Towards Artificial Intelligence? Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–10.
Ridler, A. (2021, June 5). Mosaic Virus, 2019. ANNA RIDLER.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The Standard Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.
Sen, A. (1974). Informational bases of alternative welfare approaches: Aggregation and income distribution. Journal of Public Economics, 3(4), 387–403.
Sen, A. (1980). Equality of What? In S. M. McMurrin (Ed.), The Tanner Lectures on Human Values (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press.
Sen, A. (2000). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.
Simon, H. (1985). What We Know About the Creative Process. In R. L. Kuhn (Ed.), Frontiers in Creative and Innovative Management (pp. 3–22). Ballinger Publishing Company.
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Target Article: ‘Creativity as Blind Variation and Selective Retention: Is the Creative Process Darwinian?’ Psychological Inquiry, 10(3), 309–328.
Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and Culture. The Journal of Psychology, 36(2), 311–322.
Still, A., & d’Inverno, M. (2019). Can Machines Be Artists? A Deweyan Response in Theory and Practice. Arts, 8(1), 36.
Turing, A. (1950). Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 433–460.
Walia, C. (2019). A Dynamic Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 31(3), 237–247.
Wellner, G. (2021). Digital Imagination, Fantasy, AI Art. Foundations of Science.
Wu, Q., Zhu, B., Yong, B., Wei, Y., Jiang, X., Zhou, R., & Zhou, Q. (2021). ClothGAN: Generation of fashionable Dunhuang clothes using generative adversarial networks. Connection Science, 33(2), 341–358.