Abstract
In this chapter we hypothesise that, with regard to the defining activity of creativity (the ability to generate novel and effective outputs), artificial systems are limited to, at best, moderate levels of incremental creativity. In other words, artificial systems have the potential to generate new, and effective, variations of existing ideas, solutions, systems, and artefacts. Furthermore, even with improvements and changes to the technology of AI, this capacity is likely not to transition, eventually, into an autonomous ability for radical creativity, but simply into higher levels of incremental creativity, at a lower cost. While computing power will increase, and algorithms will continue to improve, the limiting factor on artificial creativity (aside from possible data and energy constraints) is not how (the process): rather, it is the rationale (why). No matter how good AI technology becomes, the reason why we are creative (problem definition and solution validation) remains the job of humans. Furthermore, the importance of educating humans for creativity becomes stronger as the jobs of the future coalesce around non-routine, non-algorithmic, non-automatable jobs and tasks.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The term “robot” is used here as a general reference to systems of hardware and/or software that employ artificial intelligence and automation to replicate human actions.
- 2.
For the sake of simplicity, we use Product to mean any idea, artefact, process, system or service. Any tangible or intangible output of a creative process.
- 3.
It is not our intent here to discuss, in detail, the mechanisms or methods of Machine Learning. We are drawing on well-established broad properties of different classes of Machine Learning to illustrate their potential application in artificial creativity.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
The Nikkei Hoshi Shinichi Literary Award is open to both human and non-human (i.e., AI) authors.
- 7.
This could be either in the sense that robots, literally, pick and choose what they do, or figuratively, in the sense that the owners of expensive, intelligent robots would not waste this resource on menial, dangerous or dirty tasks that risk damaging their robot.
References
Amabile, T.M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43, 997–1013.
Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Ashton, R.H. (1990). Pressure and performance in accounting decision settings: Paradoxical effects of incentives, feedback, and justification. Journal of Accounting Research 28, 148–180.
Atlantic, T. (2018). Available: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/automated-on-the-road/571345/ [Accessed].
Barron, F.X. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
BBC (2017). Available: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40042581 [Accessed February 23, 2021].
Boden, M.A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., and Frey, D. (2013). Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The Leadership Quarterly 24, 270–283.
Bruner, J.S. (1962a). “The Conditions of Creativity,” in Contemporary Approaches to Cognition, eds. H. Gruber, G. Terrell & M. Wertheimer. (New York, NY: Atherton Press), 1–30.
Bruner, J.S. (1962b). The New Educational Technology. The American Behavioral Scientist 6, 5–7.
Burger, B., Maffettone, P.M., Gusev, V.V., Aitchison, C.M., Bai, Y., Wang, X., Li, X., Alston, B.M., Li, B., and Clowes, R. (2020). A mobile robotic chemist. Nature 583, 237–241.
Campbell, D.T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review 67, 380–400.
Cropley, D. H. (2015). Creativity in engineering: Novel solutions to complex problems. San Diego: Academic.
Cropley, D. H. (2019). Homo Problematis Solvendis - Problem-solving Man: A History of Human Creativity. Singapore: Springer Nature.
Cropley, D. H. (2020). Femina Problematis Solvendis - Problem Solving Woman: A History of the Creativity of Women. Singapore: Springer Nature.
Cropley, D.H., and Cropley, A.J. (2015). The psychology of innovation in organizations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Elkins, A.C., and Derrick, D.C. (2013). The sound of trust: Voice as a measurement of trust during interactions with embodied conversational agents. Group Decision and Negotiation 22, 897–913.
Guckelsberger, C., Salge, C., and Colton, S. (2017). “Addressing the “why?” in computational creativity: A non-anthropocentric, minimal model of intentional creative agency”, in: 8th International Conference on Computational Creativity. (Atlanta, GA: Association for Computational Creativity).
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Traits of creativity. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 142–161). New York, NY: Harper.
Lamb, C., Brown, D. G., & Clarke, C. L. (2018). Evaluating computational creativity: An interdisciplinary tutorial. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 51(2), 1–34.
Langfred, C.W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal 47, 385–399.
Lee, P., Gillespie, N., Mann, L., and Wearing, A. (2010). Leadership and trust: Their effect on knowledge sharing and team performance. Management Learning. 41, 473–491.
Martin, M.J.C. (1994). Managing Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Technology-based Firms. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Newell, A., Shaw, J.C., and Simon, H.A. (1962). “The processes of creative thinking,” in Contemporary Approaches to Creative Thinking, eds. H. E. Gruber, G. Terrell & M. Wertheimer. (New York, NY: Atherton Press), 63–119.
OECD. (2017). Future of work and skills. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/els/emp/wcms_556984.pdf
Patston, T., J., Kaufman, J.C., Cropley, A.J., and Marrone, R.L. (2021). What Is Creativity in Education? A Qualitative Study of International Curricula. Journal of Advanced Academics.
Patston, T.P., Cropley, D.H., Marrone, R.L., and Kaufman, J.C. (2018). Teacher Implicit Beliefs of Creativity: Is there an Arts Bias? Teaching and Teacher Education 75, 366–374.
Reiter-Palmon, R., Wigert, B., and De Vreede, T. (2012). “Team creativity and innovation: The effect of group composition, social processes, and cognition,” in Handbook of organizational creativity. Elsevier), 295–326.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310.
Runco, M.A., and Jaeger, G.J. (2012). The Standard Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal 24, 92–96.
Salter, A., and Alexy, O. (2014). “The Nature of Innovation,” in The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management, eds. M. Dodgson, D.M. Gann & N. Phillips. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press), 26–49.
Shahriari, B., Swersky, K., Wang, Z., Adams, R.P., and De Freitas, N. (2015). Taking the human out of the loop: A review of Bayesian optimization. Proceedings of the IEEE 104, 148–175.
Sheridan, T.B., and Hennessy, R.T. (1984). “Research and modeling of supervisory control behavior. Report of a workshop.” (Washington DC).
Simonton, D.K. (2011). Creativity and discovery as blind variation and selective retention: Multiple-variant definition and blind-sighted integration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 5, 222–228.
Strubell, E., Ganesh, A., and Mccallum, A. (2019). “Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in NLP”, in: arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.02243.)
WEF (2016). “The future of jobs: Employment, skills and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution”, in: Global Challenge Insight Report. World Economic Forum).
WEF (2020). “The Future of Jobs Report 2020”).
Wiggins, G.A. (2006). Searching for computational creativity. New Generation Computing 24, 209–222.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cropley, D.H., Medeiros, K.E., Damadzic, A. (2022). The Intersection of Human and Artificial Creativity. In: Henriksen, D., Mishra, P. (eds) Creative Provocations: Speculations on the Future of Creativity, Technology & Learning. Creativity Theory and Action in Education, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14549-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14549-0_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-14548-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-14549-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)