AI creates art in seconds, but creative growth still matters, paper argues

edited by Gaby Clark, reviewed by Robert Egan

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

Add to Preferred Sources Hybrid reAssembledge. Three fragmented vases reassembled through computational design and additive fabrication are shown beside an intact vessel. Rather than concealing absence or striving for seamless reconstruction, the work preserves traces of fracture and intervention, illustrating how expressive meaning can arise through the dialogue among historical artifacts, computational processes, and material repair.

Glazed ceramic, SLS nylon elements, epoxy glue, and black spray paint. Credit: The Authors. AI & SOCIETY (2026).

DOI: 10.1007/s00146-026-03379-x As artificial intelligence becomes capable of producing sophisticated art in seconds, a new paper challenges us to rethink what makes human creativity valuable. The paper argues that while AI can bypass years of artistic training, it cannot replace the transformative experiences that give creativity its deeper meaning. The research suggests that the future of art may lie less in producing impressive works and more in using technology to inspire exploration, meaningful experiences and new ways of seeing the world.

Artificial intelligence can now produce paintings, music, poetry and designs in seconds, sometimes rivaling work that would take human artists years to master. But as AI becomes increasingly capable of creating sophisticated works of art, a fundamental question emerges: If machines can produce almost anything, what makes human creativity valuable?

A new paper by Dr. Amit R. Zoran from Hebrew University, published in AI & SOCIETY, offers a new perspective on this question. Rather than focusing on whether AI-generated works qualify as art, Zoran argues that the significance of creativity lies not only in the finished product but also in the experiences that shape artists, audiences and cultures.

For centuries, producing sophisticated art required years of learning, experimentation and personal development. A painter developed not only technical skills but also a way of seeing the world, while a musician refined both physical abilities and emotional expression. Generative AI is fundamentally changing this relationship.

Zoran introduces what he calls the "decoupling thesis," arguing that AI makes it possible to produce sophisticated artistic works without undergoing the personal development traditionally required to create them. Someone can now generate detailed illustrations without learning to draw or compose music without mastering an instrument.

"For centuries, creating art meant going through a process of learning, experimenting and changing as a person," explains Zoran. "Today, AI allows us to produce sophisticated works without necessarily undergoing that journey. But this doesn't mean human creativity has lost its value. It means we need to rethink where that value lies. The real potential of AI is not simply to help us produce more images, music or designs, but to open new possibilities for how we experience, understand and engage with the world around us."

Rather than eliminating creativity, Zoran suggests that AI is shifting it toward new activities, including experimentation, interpretation and collaboration with technology. Importantly, the value of art also extends beyond its creator, influencing how audiences perceive the world and how cultures develop.

The paper highlights creative projects demonstrating how technology can enrich human experiences rather than simply generate more content. In one example, a tree becomes the center of an interactive artistic experience combining smell, taste, recorded sounds, AI-generated music and visual projections. Instead of merely producing digital content, technology helps participants engage with nature in new ways.

The research also raises questions about how AI tools should be designed and evaluated. While current systems are often judged by speed, realism and output quality, Zoran suggests considering whether they encourage curiosity, exploration and new perspectives.

For artists, this could mean using the time saved by AI to experiment and develop richer experiences. For educational and cultural institutions, it could mean placing greater value on the creative process rather than focusing exclusively on finished products.

Ultimately, Zoran argues that as AI makes artistic production increasingly accessible, the future of creativity may depend less on what people can make and more on what they can discover, experience and become through the creative process.

Rather than making human creativity irrelevant, artificial intelligence may offer an opportunity to rediscover what makes it meaningful.

Amit Raphael Zoran, More than we can make: generative AI, artistic forms, and artistic becoming, AI & SOCIETY (2026). DOI: 10.1007/s00146-026-03379-x Key concepts Generative AI copyright Generative AI ethics Provided by Hebrew University of Jerusalem Who's behind this story? Gaby Clark MA in English, copy editor since 2021 with experience in higher education and health content. Dedicated to trustworthy science news. Full profile →

Bachelor's in mathematical biology, Master's in creative writing. Well-traveled with unique perspectives on science and language. Full profile →