Creativity Versus the Perception of Creativity in Computational Systems

We add to the discussion of how to assess the creativity of programs which generate artefacts such as poems, theorems, paintings, melodies, etc. To do so, we first review some existing frameworks for assessing artefact generation programs. Then, drawing on our experience of building both a mathematical discovery system and an automated painter, we argue that it is not appropriate to base the assessment of a system on its output alone, and that the way it produces artefacts also needs to be taken into account. We suggest a simple framework within which the behaviour of a program can be categorised and described which may add to the perception of creativity in the system.

[1]  Stephen Todd,et al.  Evolutionary Art and Computers , 1992 .

[2]  Stephen Muggleton,et al.  Mathematical applications of inductive logic programming , 2006, Machine Learning.

[3]  Tony Veale,et al.  Tracking the Lexical Zeitgeist with WordNet and Wikipedia , 2006, ECAI.

[4]  P. Machado,et al.  NEvAr – The Assessment of an Evolutionary Art Tool , 2000 .

[5]  W. McCune.  A Davis-Putnam program and its application to finite-order model search: Quasigroup existence problems , 1994 .

[6]  Simon Colton,et al.  The Effect of Input Knowledge on Creativity , 2001 .

[7]  Terri Gullickson.  The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. , 1995 .

[8]  John R. Koza,et al.  Genetic Programming II , 1992 .

[9]  Pablo Gervás,et al.  WASP: Evaluation of Different Strategies for the Automatic Generation of Spanish Verse , 2002 .

[10]  Mariët Theune,et al.  The automatic generation of narratives , 2007, CLIN 2007.

[11]  John P. Collomosse,et al.  Cubist Style Rendering from Photographs , 2003, IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph..

[12]  K. Binsted,et al.  Computational rules for generating punning riddles , 1997 .

[13]  M. Boden.  The creative mind : myths & mechanisms , 1991 .

[14]  Simon Colton,et al.  Automatic Generation of Classification Theorems for Finite Algebras , 2004, IJCAR.

[15]  Peter Litwinowicz,et al.  Processing images and video for an impressionist effect , 1997, SIGGRAPH.

[16]  MSc PhD Simon Colton BSc.  Automated Theory Formation in Pure Mathematics , 2002, Distinguished Dissertations.

[17]  Maja Pantic,et al.  Biologically vs. Logic Inspired Encoding of Facial Actions and Emotions in Video , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo.

[18]  Simon Colton,et al.  Refactorable Numbers - A Machine Invention , 1999 .

[19]  Denis Baggi,et al.  Readings in computer-generated music , 1992 .

[20]  Geraint A. Wiggins,et al.  The Four-Part Harmonisation Problem : A comparison between Genetic Algorithms and a Rule-Based System , 1999 .

[21]  Toby Walsh,et al.  On the notion of interestingness in automated mathematical discovery , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[22]  Simon Colton,et al.  Towards a general framework for program generation in creative domains , 2007 .

[23]  Siemion Fajtlowicz,et al.  On conjectures of Graffiti , 1988, Discret. Math..

[24]  Simon Colton,et al.  Automatic Invention of Fitness Functions with Application to Scene Generation , 2008, EvoWorkshops.

[25]  R. Malina.  Aaron’s Code: Meta-Art, Artificial Intelligence and the Work of Harold Cohen by Pamela McCorduck (review) , 2017 .

[26]  P. McCorduck.  Aaron's Code , 1990 .

[27]  Graeme Ritchie,et al.  Some Empirical Criteria for Attributing Creativity to a Computer Program , 2007, Minds and Machines.

[28]  Matthew J. Streeter,et al.  Genetic Programming IV , 2003, Genetic Programming Series.

[29]  Geraint A. Wiggins.  Searching for computational creativity , 2006, New Generation Computing.

[30]  John P. Collomosse,et al.  Salience-adaptive Painterly Rendering Using Genetic Search , 2006, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools.

[31]  James Faure Walker.  Painting the Digital River: How an Artist Learned to Love the Computer , 2006 .