Sound Research WIKINDX
Sound Research WIKINDX |
|
|
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 Parameters |
| Runco, M. A. (2025). Updating the standard definition of creativity to account for the artificial creativity of AI. Creativity Research Journal, 37(1), 1–5. |
  
|
| Added by: alexb44 Last edited by: alexb44 02/09/2026, 02:04 | |
| "The debate about the best definition of creativity has recently gained urgency. That is because there are claims that AI is creative. AI may in fact qualify as creative according to the SDC, but at the same time there are compelling reasons to question the creativity of AI. This in turn implies that it may be time to update the SDC." | |
| Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: alexb44 02/09/2026, 02:04 | |
| "The standard definition is bipartite: Creativity requires both originality and effectiveness." | |
|
Stein on social judgment and Boden's P and H creativity
Stein (1953) is also quoted in detail because he offered several other ideas that are still in use and were well ahead of their time. These include his ideas that (a) creative work tends to be useful for some group, and thus that social judgment is involved; (b) a creative insight ‘‘arises from a reintegration of already existing materials or knowledge, but when it is completed it contains elements that are new’’ (p. 311); and (c) it is important to separate personal from historical creativity (cf. Boden, 1994; Runco, 1996). |
|
| Wingström, R., Hautala, J., & Lundman, R. (2022). Redefining creativity in the era of AI? Perspectives of computer scientists and new media artists. Creativity Research Journal, 36(2), 177–193. |
|
| Added by: alexb44 Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 18/02/2025, 23:28 | |
|
"We further apply Hayles’s theory (2017, pp. 31–32) to demonstrate that AI is a cognizer (i.e., an actor that can autonomously pursue a goal). It differs from noncognizer (i.e., a non-autonomous artifact such as a pen). Thus, researching AI from these perspectives is critical because it is a novel technology that can make decisions and change the process it participates in (cf. Mazzone & Elgammal, 2019)."
Hayles, N. K. (2017). Unthought: The power of the cognitive nonconscious. University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chi cago/9780226447919.001.0001 |
|
|
"The second perspective of computational creativity focuses on developing AI that is co-creative with humans. Human–AI co-creativity aims to blend the creativity of humans and AI in an interactive process “on a shared task in real time” (Karimi et al., 2020, p. 22). Such AI is capable of interacting with humans, learning, and adapting its functions in real time, and this interaction is also known as “human in the loop” (Chung, 2021). Thus, some consider it “an equal creative partner” to humans (Berman & James, 2018, p. 257) or a tool that can support the creativity of a human (Kantosalo & Toivonen, 2016). Research has shown that AI is capable of generating new ideas and inspiration for humans, providing knowledge that enhances humans’ creative abilities, overcoming fixated thinking and “blank canvas paralysis,” and inspiring individuals by presenting sketches of varying similarity (Kantosalo & Toivonen, 2016; Karimi et al., 2020; Maher, 2012)."
Berman, A., & James, V. (2018). Learning as performance: Autoencoding and generating dance movements in real time. In A. Liapis, J. J. R. Cardalda, & A. Ekárt (Eds.), International Conference on Computational Intelligence in Music, Sound, Art and Design (pp. 256–266). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-77583-8 |