This course-based study explores whether artificial intelligence (AI) can be perceived as creative, drawing from methods in social psychology and creativity research. Using the Torrance framework to evaluate originality, novelty, and enjoyment, the study engaged 82 CSUMB participants through the SONA platform. Participants assessed both human- and AI-generated artworks and haikus, and responses were analyzed by self-identified creativity and frequency of creative engagement.

Findings revealed that AI-generated works scored marginally higher in novelty and enjoyment among participants with lower engagement in creative work. Human-generated works scored higher in originality, especially among self-identified creatives. However, none of the comparisons reached statistical significance, and results were considered exploratory.

To supplement quantitative data, interviews were conducted with professional artists, many of whom expressed concerns about ethical implications, authorship, and the human dimension of creativity. Interviewees questioned whether AI-generated content, trained on human material and lacking lived experience, could genuinely represent the emotional depth and intentionality embedded in art. These reflections aligned with the researcher’s personal observations as a poet and creative writer, noting that AI outputs often lacked coherence, layered meaning, and aesthetic precision.

This study offers a foundational perspective on how creative identity, cognitive bias, and media priming may influence perceptions of AI-generated content. Future directions include refining measurement by artistic medium and genre, balancing training quality of AI-generated materials, and expanding qualitative inquiry into the evolving boundaries between human and machine-made creativity.

Please click the photo to be taken to the slide deck

" I am very… pessimistic, yet excited, about the development of AI. I think it’s a beautiful thing- but the strongest survive, and we humans are not gonna be the strongest. So my biggest hope is that we learn to integrate and work with AI ourselves. Work alongside it. That goes with creative generative AI (music, writing, art, and coding). I believe that coding is completely a creative work. And the reason I resent AI at the same time is that I also know how it feels to see my work and job being taken over by AI. I hoped that creativity would be the last job that AI takes over, along with many others, but ironically, it has become the first. Ethically, it’s a huge concern, and I think the next few years need to be taken incredibly seriously, law and regulation-wise. Concerns of deep fakes, music generation using the voices of artists the model was trained on, art (taking the jobs of so many), and also being trained on specific artists. It’s sad to think of a future where AI takes all our creative jobs, but that is optimal, and I’m all for optimizing this world - so at the end of the day I’m also pro AI."

"Ai can have the chance to be a very powerful tool if used right. But not for creativity. Music is about emotion and the best an AI can do is imitate what it uses to learn. But that isnt it's own work"

"Hmmm, I think part of art is letting go of the need for everyone to understand it perfectly. Life is so full of gray space, and we all come to the artwork with our own preconceived notions/subconscious biases. Thus, no one will see it the same! AI doesn't really have an intent to creation so it created a more blurred line between those who create and those who observe. Is there really something there to observe?"

What makes a work creative?

From a music perspective, I think Art becomes creative when someone puts a new spin or a unique spin on elements of their songs. The fact is that most music we hear is based on chord progressions and drum beats we’ve heard thousands and thousands of times. But sometimes people make that same chord progression in a new timbre that we’re not used to hearing, or a new chord voicing that’s not as common, and it takes on a whole new feeling. That feeling of hearing something ‘new’ from something that’s been recycled so many times, what I feel makes a work creative. 

What do creative works across media share?

I feel in other forms of art, like painting or film, you have more room to be creative and different. I think the creative works share that feeling of seeing or feeling something unique. 

What are your feelings about the use of AI in creating artistic work?

In certain respects, it has really helped me. For example, getting album artwork has always been a struggle, but now I’m just a few prompts away from having what’s in my head be created into a high-quality image that I can use. It’s been so cool being able to do that. I’m mixed on how I feel about it in music. On the one hand, music artists have never had more tools available to them to make high-quality music. For example, I’m not the biggest fan of my voice for the type of music I tend to make, but I can hit the notes close enough to make a passable vocal take. Now, I can pass that vocal take through AI and have it spit out the beautiful male and female vocals based on my vocal take. It's truly incredible. On the other hand, I’m not a big fan of people using AI to create complete tracks; I think it cheapens the craft by making the most generic, mundane music imaginable. 

Are there any ethical concerns that come to mind?

The ethical concerns would be if someone gets really good at making AI music prompts and achieves success in the music scene, is this person a musician or artist? Or are they a prompt engineer? Is there any talent involved in writing a good prompt? I don’t think so. 

What do you feel distinguishes human art from AI art?

Human art is fallible. Especially on live recorded tracks, there is so much room for error and nuance that AI can’t quite capture yet. AI art is very much a paint-by-numbers approach to music; it sounds and feels so mundane. But I can say the same about some other generic human-made tracks that can gain popularity. 

How do you think AI might challenge our understanding of what it means to be an artist?

I think there will be a sliding scale on how much AI is used in the craft. If your whole craft is built entirely on AI, I don’t think you’re an artist. But if you use AI tools to help you, for example, an AI tool that helps mix your track to sound better, you’re an artist who is using the tools available to you.

"Latent awareness that humans are very flawed, why we fear divine judgment, the omnipotence of a powerful AI causes the same fear."

"The ultimate judgment for all Abrahamic religions is judgment day. That fear presents itself in AI."

"What of humanity is worth saving?"

"How does capitalism and greed push AI dominance?"

"AI pushing out humans can happen, but I doubt it. The human experience is incredibly varied, true art that transcends comes from a percentile of the population of musicians. Fewer have a legacy that lasts. AI is novel, not consistent."

"AI is new and exciting, but it won’t persist."

"In art, there is a remarkable sense of conflict, pain versus pleasure, agony versus ecstasy. Can an AI experience pain? It might be able to replicate, but can you truly feel that pain? Is it genuine?"

"I can play an A minor chord, and there's sorrow there, but that can be simulated. "

"People feel numb and alienated, we are prone to connect with the other, with the outgroup (referring to AI)."

"We humans desire deviating from monotony, do machines?"

"How deeply can AI rewrite its own code? Do AI dream of electric sheep?"

"Drawing, painting, and writing are the creative mediums I work in. Regardless of the medium, creativity is inherently a human thing. AI should only be used for reference, never to be passed off as one’s own. Ethically, I worry about stuff like art theft. What sets human art apart from AI’s is intent. There are always little details that AI struggles to replicate. "