Advertisement

Minds and Machines

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 67–99 | Cite as

Some Empirical Criteria for Attributing Creativity to a Computer Program

  • Graeme Ritchie
Article

Abstract

Over recent decades there has been a growing interest in the question of whether computer programs are capable of genuinely creative activity. Although this notion can be explored as a purely philosophical debate, an alternative perspective is to consider what aspects of the behaviour of a program might be noted or measured in order to arrive at an empirically supported judgement that creativity has occurred. We sketch out, in general abstract terms, what goes on when a potentially creative program is constructed and run, and list some of the relationships (for example, between input and output) which might contribute to a decision about creativity. Specifically, we list a number of criteria which might indicate interesting properties of a program’s behaviour, from the perspective of possible creativity. We go on to review some ways in which these criteria have been applied to actual implementations, and some possible improvements to this way of assessing creativity.

Keywords

AI methodology Computational creativity Empirical criteria Generating artefacts Assessing output 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Geraint Wiggins, Simon Colton and Alison Pease for useful discussions of this material, and Chris Thornton for comments on a draft.

References

  1. Baggi, D. (Ed.). (1992). Readings in computer generated music. New York: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  2. Binsted, K., Pain, H., & Ritchie, G. (1997). Children’s evaluation of computer-generated punning riddles. Pragmatics and Cognition, 5(2), 305–354.Google Scholar
  3. Binsted, K., & Ritchie, G. (1997). Computational rules for generating punning riddles. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 10(1), 25–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boden, M. A. (1992). The creative mind (2nd ed.). London: Abacus. First published 1990.Google Scholar
  5. Boden, M. A. (1998). Creativity and artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 103, 347–356.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Bundy, A. (1994). What is the difference between real creativity and mere novelty? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17(3), 533–534. Open Peer Commentary on Boden (1992).Google Scholar
  7. Colton, S. (2002). Automated theory formation in pure mathematics. Distinguished dissertations. London: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Colton, S., Bundy, A., & Walsh, T. (2000) Agent based cooperative theory formation in pure mathematics. In G. Wiggins (Ed.), Proceedings of AISB 2000 symposium on creative and cultural aspects and applications of AI and cognitive science (pp. 11–18). Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
  9. Colton, S., Pease, A., & Ritchie, G. (2001). The effect of input knowledge on creativity. In R. Weber & C. G. von Wangenheim, (Eds.), Case-based reasoning: Papers from the workshop programme at ICCBR 01, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  10. Dreyfus, H. L. (1979). What computers can’t do. New York: Harper Row, revised edition. First edition 1972.Google Scholar
  11. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gervás, P. (2000). WASP: Evaluation of different strategies for the automatic generation of Spanish verse. In G. A. Wiggins (Ed.), Proceedings of the AISB 00 symposium on creative & cultural aspects and applications of AI & cognitive science (pp. 93–100). Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour.Google Scholar
  13. Gervás, P. (2001). Generating poetry from a prose text: Creativity versus faithfulness. In G. A. Wiggins (Ed.), Proceedings of the AISB 01 symposium on artificial intelligence and creativity in arts and science (pp. 93–99). Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour.Google Scholar
  14. Gervás, P. (2002). Exploring quantitative evaluations of the creativity of automatic poets. In C. Bento, A. Cardoso, & G. Wiggins (Eds.), 2nd workshop on creative systems, approaches to creativity in artificial intelligence and cognitive science, ECAI 2002. Lyon, France.Google Scholar
  15. Haenen, J., & Rauchas, S. (2006). Investigating artificial creativity by generating melodies, using connectionist knowledge representation. In Proceedings of 3rd joint workshop on computational creativity, ECAI (pp. 33–38). Italy: Riva del Garda.Google Scholar
  16. Koza, J. R., Keane, M. A., Streeter, M. J., Mydlowec, W., Yu, J., & Lanza, G. (2003). Genetic programming IV: Routine human-competitive machine intelligence. Kluwer Academic Publishers/Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Lenat, D. (1976). An artificial intelligence approach to discovery in mathematics as heuristic search. Memo AIM-286, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  18. Lenat, D. (1979). On automated scientific theory formation: A case study using the AM program. In J. Hayes, D. Michie, & L. Mikulich (Eds.), Machine intelligence 9 (pp. 251–283). Chichester: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  19. Manurung, H. M., Ritchie, G., & Thompson, H. (2000a). A flexible integrated architecture for generating poetic texts. In Proceedings of the fourth symposium on natural language processing (SNLP 2000) (pp. 7–22). Thailand: Chiang Mai.Google Scholar
  20. Manurung, H. M., Ritchie, G., & Thompson, H. (2000b). Towards a computational model of poetry generation. In G. A. Wiggins (Ed.), Proceedings of the AISB 00 symposium on creative & cultural aspects and applications of AI & cognitive science (pp. 79–86). Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour.Google Scholar
  21. Meehan, J. (1976). The metanovel: Writing stories by computer. PhD thesis, Yale University, Department of Computer Science.Google Scholar
  22. Mendes, M., Pereira, F. C., & Cardoso, A. (2004). Creativity in natural language: Studying lexical relations. In Proceedings of LREC workshop on language resources for linguistic creativity. Evaluations and Language Resources Distribution Agency.Google Scholar
  23. Miranda, E. (2001). Composing music with computers. Amsterdam: Focal Press/Elsevier.Google Scholar
  24. Pease, A., Winterstein, D., & Colton, S. (2001). Evaluating machine creativity. In R. Weber, & C. G. von Wangenheim (Eds.), Case-based reasoning: Papers from the workshop programme at ICCBR 01 (pp. 129–137). Vancouver.Google Scholar
  25. Pereira, F. C. (2005). A computational model of creativity. PhD thesis, Universidade de Coimbra.Google Scholar
  26. Pereira, F. C., Mendes, M., Gervás, P., & Cardoso, A. (2005). Experiments with assessment of creative systems: An application of Ritchie’s criteria. In P. Gervás, T. Veale, & A. Pease (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on computational creativity, 19th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (Technical Report 5-05, pp. 37–44). Departamento de Sistemas Informáticosy Programación, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.Google Scholar
  27. Ritchie, G. (2001). Assessing creativity. In Proceedings of the AISB symposium on artificial intelligence and creativity in arts and science (pp. 3–11). York, England.Google Scholar
  28. Ritchie, G. (2006). The transformational creativity hypothesis. New Generation Computing, 24, 241–266.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ritchie, G. D., & Hanna, F. K. (1984). AM: A case study in AI methodology. Artificial Intelligence, 23, 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Steel, G., Colton, S., Bundy, A., & Walsh, T. (2000). Cross-domain mathematical concept formation. In G. Wiggins, (Ed.), Proceedings of AISB 2000 symposium on creative and cultural aspects and applications of AI and cognitive science (pp. 3–10). Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
  31. Stock, O., & Strapparava, C. (2005). The act of creating humorous acronyms. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19(2), 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Turner, S. R. (1994). The creative process: A computer model of storytelling. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  33. Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer power and human reason. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  34. Wiggins, G. (2001). Towards a more precise characterisation of creativity in AI. In R. Weber, & C. G. von Wangenheim (Eds.), Case-based reasoning: Papers from the workshop programme at ICCBR 01. Vancouver: Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  35. Wiggins, G. (2003). Categorising creative systems. In Proceedings of third (IJCAI) workshop on creative systems: Approaches to creativity in artificial intelligence and cognitive science.Google Scholar
  36. Wiggins, G. (2005). Searching for computational creativity. In P. Gervás, T. Veale, & A. Pease (Eds.), Proceedings of the IJCAI-05 workshop on computational creativity (Technical Report 5-05, pp. 68–73). Departamento de Sistemas Informáticos y Programación, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.Google Scholar
  37. Wiggins, G. (2006a). A preliminary framework for description, analysis and comparison of creative systems. Knowledge-Based Systems, 19, 449–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wiggins, G. A. (2006b). Searching for computational creativity. New Generation Computing, 24(3), 209–222.MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations