The event celebrates the third annual TIME100 AI list, which highlights the 100 most influential people in AI. This year's list includes 84 new honorees--a testament to the dynamism of the field--with those selected ranging in age from 15 to nearly 80. The aim of the TIME list is to show how it is people, not machines, that will determine the direction of AI, and honorees were drawn from every angle of the discipline. The event culminated in four toasts delivered by 2025 TIME100 AI honorees, who highlighted the importance of guiding AI responsibly, including with regulation; protecting human creativity; and fostering collaboration between human and machine intelligence. Stuart Russell, professor of computer science at the University of California, Berkeley, and co-founder of the International Association for Safe and Ethical AI (IASEAI), delivered the first toast--a provocative call to make wise choices about how we use AI, given the high existential stakes involved.

This paper investigates the importance of personal ownership in musical AI design, examining how practising musicians can maintain creative control over the compositional process. Through a four-week ecological evaluation, we examined how a music variation tool, reliant on the skill of musicians, functioned within a composition setting. Our findings demonstrate that the dependence of the tool on the musician's ability, to provide a strong initial musical input and to turn moments into complete musical ideas, promoted ownership of both the process and artefact. Qualitative interviews further revealed the importance of this personal ownership, highlighting tensions between technological capability and artistic identity. These findings provide insight into how musical AI can support rather than replace human creativity, highlighting the importance of designing tools that preserve the humanness of musical expression.

In the heart of Dubai, just steps from the Burj Khalifa, the future of food is taking shape. A new restaurant called Woohoo plans to serve more than just dinner. It offers a futuristic food experience designed in part by artificial intelligence. Opening in September, Woohoo calls itself "dining in the future." But what does that actually mean?

This position paper argues that token prediction is fundamentally misaligned with real creativity. While next-token models have enabled impressive advances in language generation, their architecture favours surface-level coherence over spontaneity, originality, and improvisational risk. In contrast, creative acts, particularly in live performance domains, require dynamic responsiveness and stylistic divergence, enabling humans to transcend pre-learned patterns in the moment. We use battle rap as a case study to expose the limitations of predictive systems, demonstrating that they cannot truly engage in adversarial or emotionally resonant exchanges. As a result, such models fail to support the interactive flow states where human creators "lose themselves in the moment." Rather than pursuing greater predictive accuracy, we argue that AI research should embrace dialogue as a form of co-negotiated creative agency. This shift calls for approaches that prioritize real-time interaction, rhythmic alignment, and adaptive generative control. By reframing creativity as an interactive process rather than a predictive output, we offer a vision for AI systems that are more expressive, responsive, and aligned with human creative practice.

If you use an AI image or text generator to make a work of "art," does it belong to you? That's a huge question hanging over the heads of anyone tempted to use AI tools for commercial products. Crucially, simply plugging prompts into an AI image generator or text generator does NOT meet this burden. Because the author (or artist, or other relevant creative term) of a work is defined as "the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression," an AI system cannot meet this burden, even though it's using input from a human to generate its output. Commenting on established case law, the report says that "…the Supreme Court has made clear that originality is required, not just time and effort."

This week has seen writers divided over a story written by an AI model that is "good at creative writing" – at least according to Sam Altman, the CEO of ChatGPT company OpenAI, which is developing the new model. Author Jeanette Winterson, writing in the Guardian on Wednesday, agreed with him, calling the story – which is a metafictional piece about grief – "beautiful and moving". We asked other authors to assess ChatGPT's current writing skills – and what recent developments around artificial intelligence might mean for human creativity. I think the story is an elegant emptiness. I'm more interested by Winterson's suggestion that we treat AI as "alternative intelligence". That makes it feel like a consciousness with which we can have a relationship, but as far as I know that would be like a bird falling in love with its reflection in a window.

This literature review interrogates the intersections between artificial intelligence, poetry, and art, offering a comprehensive exploration of both historical evolution and current debates in digital creative practices. It traces the development of computer-generated poetry from early template-based systems to generative models, critically assessing evaluative frameworks such as adaptations of the Turing Test, the FACE model, and ProFTAP. It also examines how these frameworks endeavour to measure creativity, semantic coherence, and cultural relevance in AI-generated texts, whilst highlighting the persistent challenges in replicating the nuance of human poetic expression. The review contributes a Marketing Theory discussion that deconstructs the figurative marketing narratives employed by AI companies, which utilise sanitised language and anthropomorphic metaphors to humanise their technologies. This discussion reveals the reductive nature of such narratives and underscores the tension between algorithmic precision and the realities of human creativity.The review also incorporates an auto-ethnographic account that offers a self-reflexive commentary on its own composition. By acknowledging the use of AI in crafting this review, the auto-ethnographic account destabilises conventional notions of authorship and objectivity, resonating with deconstruction and challenging logocentric assumptions in academic discourse. Ultimately, the review calls for a re-evaluation of creative processes that recognises the interdependence of technological innovation and human subjectivity. It advocates for interdisciplinary dialogue addressing ethical, cultural, and philosophical concerns, while reimagining the boundaries of artistic production.

The birth of ChatGPT brought a collection of anxieties regarding how large language models allow users to quickly subvert processes that once required human time, effort, passion, and understanding. And further, the tech sector's often stormy relationship with regulation and ethical oversight have left many fearful for a future where artificial intelligence replaces humans at work and stymies human creativity. While much of this alarm is well founded, we should also consider the possibility that human creativity can blossom in the age of AI. In 2025, we will start to see this manifest in our collective cultural response to technology. To examine how culture and creativity might adapt to the age of AI, we'll use hip-hop as an example.

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems capable of generating creative outputs are reshaping our understanding of creativity. This shift presents an opportunity for creativity researchers to reevaluate the key components of the creative process. In particular, the advanced capabilities of AI underscore the importance of studying the internal processes of creativity. This paper explores the neurobiological machinery that underlies these internal processes and describes the experiential component of creativity. It is concluded that although the products of artificial and human creativity can be similar, the internal processes are different. The paper also discusses how AI may negatively affect the internal processes of human creativity, such as the development of skills, the integration of knowledge, and the diversity of ideas.

This study presents a theory-inspired visual narrative generative system that integrates conceptual principles-comic authoring idioms-with generative and language models to enhance the comic creation process. Our system combines human creativity with AI models to support parts of the generative process, providing a collaborative platform for creating comic content. These comic-authoring idioms, derived from prior human-created image sequences, serve as guidelines for crafting and refining storytelling. The system translates these principles into system layers that facilitate comic creation through sequential decision-making, addressing narrative elements such as panel composition, story tension changes, and panel transitions. Key contributions include integrating machine learning models into the human-AI cooperative comic generation process, deploying abstract narrative theories into AI-driven comic creation, and a customizable tool for narrative-driven image sequences. This approach improves narrative elements in generated image sequences and engages human creativity in an AI-generative process of comics. We open-source the code at https://github.com/RimiChen/Collaborative_Comic_Generation.