First, given the inference that the limit of current computational technology, in whatever form, lies in the boundary of precedented instructions or symbolic languages set by humans, what might be the cause of, if there exists, the creativity of AI? An analogy to a human kid undergoing academic education would help understand this inquiry: the academic ability of this kid used to be completely dependent on what the teachers offered, as the kid had no other sources of information or techniques. It kept on being such a way as the kid gained more and more knowledge, but at a certain point, the kid encountered a problem that none of what the teachers taught suffices to solve. Will it be possible for a “Eureka” moment when the kid started doing something that none of the teachers perceived as having either taught or seen before – and the kid solved it? What is this something “unprecedented”? What triggers it? Is it some extreme cases of hardly-traceable extrapolation from what the kid has been instructed, or is some intelligence or reasoning a priori that allowed the actual breakthrough from the boundary of previous educations? As for AI, does the structure of neural networks imply some kind of existence in it of reason a priori? Does the man-made intelligence itself need to understand what it is doing, rather than being the person in the Chinese Room to come up with such innovation? These are all questions worthy to investigate, especially out of the concern for artists and musicians. For if the AI “innovation” belongs to the unordinary cases of extrapolation, then the “innovation” is only an irregular projection of human intellectual achievement. But if otherwise, that AI does have reason a priori, the whole notion of art is facing fundamental reformation.