Reflecting on Creative-Boundaries with an AI Co-Doodler

This paper examines the question of whether artificial intelligence (AI) systems can be creative, approached from the dual perspective of a researcher trained in electrical engineering, pattern recognition, machine learning, and neural networks, who has also spent most of his life engaged in the arts as actor, stage and film director, writer, composer, and visual artist, and in philosophy. Drawing on Margaret Boden's foundational framework, both her three properties of creativity (novelty, surprise, and value) and her three types of creative processes (combinatorial, exploratory, and transformational), the paper argues that AI systems are structurally incapable of creativity in its strongest sense. While they exhibit genuine capability in the domain of combinatorial creativity, they are significantly bounded in exploratory creativity, and fundamentally incapable of transformational creativity. The paper further argues that the most important limitation of current AI systems is not the absence of novelty per se, but the absence of any mechanism for serendipity, accident, or the unexpected, all of which play a central role in the phenomenology of creativity, and the absence of any subject position from which to recognize and welcome such chance events. The paper concludes by proposing a model of human, AI creative collaboration that is both realistic and generative, illustrated by several concrete experiments. The paper is itself a demonstration of the thesis it advances: it was composed through a deliberate human AI collaborative process, which is described in the methodological note that opens it.

AI agents that generate final answers based on user input often do not meet the needs of creative fields. Fields such as structural design and architecture need interactive systems that help users externalise and develop ideas, explore alternatives, and refine partial solutions. The final product of such designs needs to comply with many constraints concerning, e.g., spatial configuration, mechanical behaviour, material quantities, and costs. These constraints create friction in the design process, which can stimulate novel and creative solutions. In this paper, we discuss the misalignment between current generative AI goals to remove friction and provide final solutions and the needs of creators, such as structural designers, who develop ideas through iterative work. We present the design dimensions of systems allowing for constrained human-AI co-creation that rely on vision-language models making structural exploration conversational, multimodal, and responsive to evolving human intent in ways that follow and augment the discipline's creative process. Through a pilot design interface based on these principles and a study with experts in the field, this paper shows how structural designers perceive interactive AI systems and how such systems can support design space exploration by reducing repetitive modelling friction while preserving reflective design friction.

Generative AI tools for creative work tend to be designed around the goal of removing friction, on the assumption that smoother iteration and faster output translate into more value for the designer. We argue, however, that this framing leaves out something important about how design ideation works, namely reflection-in-action. The act of accepting, rejecting and reworking candidate ideas is both a path to a final outcome and the process through which designers develop the rationale that allows them to think with their ideas and to communicate them to others. This becomes particularly important in group ideation, where ideas need to be expressed and explained to others to allow the group to extend, reject or combine them further. We suggest that AI in design ideation might be more usefully thought of as a friction agent for reflection rather than as a smoothing agent for output. This reframing opens up a different role for AI in design ideation, one that supports designers in building and carrying rationale rather than substituting for it.