The AI creativity debate was asking the wrong question

For the last three years, we've been arguing about whether AI is creative.

Can it create something original?
Can it innovate?
Can it be considered an author?

Meanwhile, the legal system has been focused on a completely different question.

Who is responsible when AI-generated content causes harm?

That's the question that actually affects businesses.

Imagine two scenarios:

In the first, a court concludes that an AI model isn't truly creative.

In the second, a court concludes that your company is liable for AI-generated output that infringes someone's rights.

Only one of those outcomes changes your risk profile.

The creativity debate became popular because it was intellectually fascinating.

The liability debate matters because it's operational.

Every company using generative AI is already making decisions about content, code, images, marketing materials, customer communications, and internal workflows.

If something goes wrong, courts are unlikely to spend much time debating whether the model experienced inspiration.

They're going to ask who deployed it, who approved the output, and who bears responsibility.

As AI becomes part of everyday business operations, what should companies be prioritizing more — model capability or accountability for the outcomes it produces?