Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Sean Dorrance Kelly’s answer is no—not because AI cannot produce impressive work, but because producing an artifact is not the same as exercising human creativity. In Kelly’s reported view, creativity depends on human beings valuing and caring about creative work within a social world. That is a philosophical position, not a settled definition of art or a consensus among artists and philosophers.
What does Kelly mean when he says AI cannot create true art?
The claim is about more than whether a machine can generate a compelling image, piece of music, or strategy. Futurism’s 2019 account of Kelly’s argument says an AI might produce a “well-executed Bach cantata” or “a brilliant Go strategy.” Kelly’s distinction, as reported there, is that an impressive output alone does not make the system an autonomous creative agent in the way a free-thinking human can be.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Kelly connects human creativity with the meaning people give creative work. Futurism quotes him: “Creativity is one of the defining features of human beings,” followed by, “But this kind of creativity depends upon our valuing it, and caring for it, as such.” On this account, creativity is socially embedded: people make, interpret, value, and care about what is created.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Futurism also quotes Kelly saying, “Human creative achievement, because of the way it is socially embedded, will not succumb to advances in artificial intelligence,” and, “To say otherwise is to misunderstand both what human beings are and what our creativity amounts to.” These statements are Kelly’s argument as reported by Victor Tangermann, not proof that AI cannot technically generate art-like work.
#1 Best Overall
Is an AI-generated work really art?
There is no single uncontested definition of “true art” established by this argument. The answer depends partly on what someone thinks matters most when judging a work:
- The artifact and its reception: If the work itself and the response it evokes are central, an AI-generated piece may count as art to a viewer even if the system lacks human intentions.
- Authorship and agency: If art requires an agent with intentions, understanding, or a human life behind the work, then an AI’s output may not qualify on those terms.
- Social meaning: Kelly’s reported position emphasizes that creativity is embedded in human practices of valuing and caring. A machine’s ability to produce an artifact would not, by itself, settle whether it participates in those practices as a creative agent.
These are ways to clarify the disagreement, not a list of positions that the 2019 report attributes to particular schools of thought. Kelly’s view gives human social context a central role; other judgments about art may place greater weight on the artifact or audience response.
Are we substituting machine creativity for our own?
Kelly’s argument raises this question, but it does not establish that using AI necessarily replaces human creativity. A generated output and the human choices around it are distinct: people may decide what to ask a system to make, select or revise results, interpret them, and decide whether they matter. Whether that activity amounts to human creative achievement—or instead delegates too much of it—is a further question about authorship and practice, not something settled merely by the presence of AI.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesThe key distinction is between a system producing an output and a person or community treating creative work as meaningful. Kelly’s reported claim challenges the assumption that increasingly capable output automatically makes AI an independent human-like creator.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is established—and what is not
Futurism identifies Kelly as a Harvard philosophy professor and reports that his essay appeared in MIT Technology Review. The original essay was not available for independent verification here, so the quotations and account of its thesis should be understood as Futurism’s reporting of Kelly’s position rather than a complete reconstruction of the essay. The article does not establish a technical limit on what AI can generate, a universal definition of art, or agreement among philosophers.
Read the report and its attributed quotations in Victor Tangermann’s February 21, 2019 Futurism article.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →
