Sound Research WIKINDX
Sound Research WIKINDX |
|
 |
|
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 (2/18/25, 2:26 PM) Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard (2/19/25, 12:28 AM) |
 |
| Resource type: Journal Article Language: en: English Peer reviewed DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2022.2107850 BibTeX citation key: Wingstrom2022 Email resource to friend View all bibliographic details  |
Categories: AI/Machine Learning Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Creativity Creators: Hautala, Lundman, Wingström Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Collection: Creativity Research Journal |
Views: 34/216
|
| Abstract |
|
Artificial intelligence (AI) has breached creativity research. The advancements of creative AI systems dispute the common definitions of creativity that have traditionally focused on five elements: actor, process, outcome, domain, and space. Moreover, creative workers, such as scientists and artists, increasingly use AI in their creative processes, and the concept of co-creativity has emerged to describe blended human–AI creativity. These issues evoke the question of whether creativity requires redefinition in the era of AI. Currently, co-creativity is mostly studied within the framework of computer science in pre-organized laboratory settings. This study contributes from a human scientific perspective with 52 interviews of Finland-based computer scientists and new media artists who use AI in their work. The results suggest scientists and artists use similar elements to define creativity. However, the role of AI differs between the scientific and artistic creative processes. Scientists need AI to produce accurate and trustworthy outcomes, whereas artists use AI to explore and play. Unlike the scientists, some artists also considered their work with AI co-creative. We suggest that co-creativity can explain the contemporary creative processes in the era of AI and should be the focal point of future creativity research.
|
| Quotes |
|
pp.179–180, Paragraph 2
"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 Keywords: Artificial Intelligence Creativity |
|
p.182
"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 Keywords: Artificial Intelligence Creativity |