For decades, people have believed that creativity is an important trait that distinguishes humans from machines. However, with the rise of generative artificial intelligence, this concept is facing challenges. In early November, the UK's "Nature" website pointed out that whether it is poetry, videos, ideas, or music, works generated by artificial intelligence (AI) can now rival many works created by humans. This means that the current scientific definition of creativity is no longer able to clearly define the boundary between humans and machines. So, has AI truly possessed creativity? Many scientists hold a negative attitude towards this, pointing out that the "collaborative creation" between humans and AI is the future direction. The narrative quality is inferior to professional works. Although creativity is difficult to describe and measure, it is usually defined as the ability to produce works or things that are both original and of practical value. Starting from 2023, researchers from various fields such as business and neuroscience have reported that AI systems have been able to perform as well as humans in such tests. Mark Renko, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Oregon and founding editor of the Journal of Creativity Research, stated that people often find it difficult to distinguish whether their creative content is created by AI or humans, whether it's poetry, scientific hypotheses, or mobile applications. However, research has confirmed that top human creators still have an advantage. A study comparing short stories created by humans with works by chatbots showed that although some AI stories are considered comparable to amateur human works, their narrative quality is far inferior to professional works published by The New Yorker. AI works often lack a complete narrative framework and the portrayal of characters is also unsatisfactory. Another experiment also showed that when it comes to conceptualizing new features for everyday items, AI's innovation ability cannot even compare to that of a five-year-old child. In the field of science, AI excels in handling well-defined problems, such as predicting the three-dimensional structure of proteins. However, when faced with broader scientific challenges, AI appears powerless. The Stanford University team found that when generating computer science research plans, the ideas proposed by AI are either computationally expensive and difficult to execute, or fail to fully reference previous achievements, while human solutions are more feasible. In addition, some AI systems lack imagination and struggle to come up with truly groundbreaking scientific insights. The French American joint team stated that humans often try new experiments out of curiosity and adjust their thinking to explain the results, but AI systems such as ChatGPT-4 appear stubborn and difficult to change their original thinking path even in the face of new evidence. Most scientists hold a negative attitude towards the question of whether AI should be considered creative based on the aforementioned research and facts. James Kaufman, an educational psychologist at the University of Connecticut and author of several books on creativity, believes that people need to understand the process of creation, rather than just focusing on the results. Although AI can produce creative works, it has not undergone the real creative process, making it difficult to be regarded as a subject with creativity. Katerina Morozzi, a philosopher who studies creativity and AI at the Edinburgh College of Arts in the UK, stated that although some AI models can evaluate their output and make improvements, they can still only move forward along the goals set by human users. Jon McCormack, a researcher on computational creativity at Monash University in Australia, also emphasized that even high-quality AI creations are essentially "parasitic" on training materials rich in human creativity. AI cannot independently propose artistic concepts or become truly independent artists. Lunke is concerned that easily acknowledging the creativity of AI systems may trigger a cultural crisis. Teachers and even the entire society may gradually focus only on the final outcome, while neglecting the cultivation of important qualities such as flexibility and intrinsic motivation. Human machine collaboration is the trend. Faced with the controversy over whether AI has creativity, many scientists choose to shift their perspective and focus on studying the interaction between humans and machines. Maria Theresa Rano, a computer scientist at the University of Essex in the UK, proposed that creativity is essentially a dialogue, and the emergence of AI has brought a new medium of creation to humanity. She is dedicated to exploring the emerging field of 'collaborative creativity', no longer viewing AI as a simple response tool, but rather exploring how it can inspire new forms of artistic creation. In practice, some artists have begun to explore new forms of collaboration between humans and AI, and "malfunctioning art" is a typical example. Artists utilize the malfunction of electronic devices to transform technical defects into unique aesthetic expressions through artistic processing. The "Imitation Poet" device developed by Jon McCormack's team at Monash University in Australia further deepens this human-computer interaction. By combining magnetic text blocks on a specially designed surface, the AI system immediately responds and generates a poem, forming a true creative dialogue. In another collaborative project, McCormack and Louis Bradshaw, a researcher at the University of London in the UK, jointly developed an AI model called Aria. Aria can not only create piano pieces, but also try to change the pitch of notes and explain the considerations behind her music choices. They hope that such AI tools will ultimately provide more creative possibilities for humanity and help expand the boundaries of human culture. However, scientists also caution against potential risks. A study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the United States shows that participants who rely on AI assisted writing have lower brain connectivity activity and tend to have a more monotonous creative style. Another study on creative writing also found that AI assisted stories exhibit a clear tendency towards homogenization compared to purely human creations, which raises concerns about the potential loss of cultural diversity. There are also divergent views in academia regarding whether AI will bring more equitable creative opportunities. On the one hand, AI has indeed lowered the threshold for creativity, allowing people who do not understand musical instruments to create music; On the other hand, if high-quality AI resources are unevenly distributed, it may actually exacerbate existing inequality. (New Society)