Note: This is a paper co-authored with Katsunori Miyahara (https://kmiyahara.weebly.com/) and Ian Robertson (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=bV7OgRYAAAAJ&hl=en).

While artificial intelligence (AI) models demonstrably exhibit performative creativity by generating novel and sophisticated artworks, the appropriate evaluative attitude toward these models remains obscure. In this paper, we argue that despite their creative efficacy, AI models are fundamentally unworthy of praise as creators. We first critique a common and initially attractive argument for this view: AI lacks creative intention. We demonstrate that this line of reasoning is unconvincing, as human creators frequently produce praise-worthy works through unintentional actions, proving that creative intention is not a necessary condition for praise-worthy creativity. Next, we introduce the core problem: generative AI models are not properly individuated as targets of praise. Human creativity is an expression of who the agent is. Human creators constitute their identity as a creator through the very act of creation. Therefore, we praise the source of the work, the creator, alongside the work itself. Conversely, AI models are static entities whose identity as “creators” is predetermined from without and entirely decoupled from active engagement. Since AI models do not make themselves through the act of creation, there is no distinct target to whom praise can be coherently directed in the case of artificial creativity. Finally, we propose that the correct evaluative attitude toward AI may be awe, an attitude akin to our aesthetic appreciation of the natural world, where profound creativity manifests in the absence of an individuated agent.