Because of new technologies, especially artificial intelligence, creativity is changing in a big way. At the moment, computers are used in almost every creative field, from music to architecture to the visual arts to science. Yes, the computer can be used as many other things, like a canvas, a paintbrush, a musical instrument, and so on. But we think it’s very important to set higher standards for how computers affect the creative process. The computer could be seen as a source of creativity on its own, not just as a tool for artists to use. This point of view has led to a new area of study in the science of artificial intelligence called “computational creativity.” This article talks about whether or not it is possible to make new systems that are run by computers. It does this by showing a number of examples of current computer programs that can simulate different kinds of creative art work. Lastly, we talk about the current trend of using tools and other methods to improve the creative process and make creativity more accessible to everyone.
Neon, painted metal, 2.4 x 1.65 x 0.45 m, Centre Pompidou–Musée national d’art moderne–Centre de création industrielle, Paris, France.
Researchers in the field of computational creativity try to figure out how to teach machines to think like people. This kind of creative software can automatically do things like come up with new math ideas, write poems, make pictures, and make music. On the other hand, computational creativity research helps us learn about how people are creative and make tools for creative people to use, where the software is a partner in the creative process rather than a passive tool. People have had a hard time believing for a long time that robots could be smart, let alone creative. In the field of computer science, there is still doubt about whether or not software can spark new ideas. Some people who don’t like computational creativity say that “replicating artistic processes means also imitating human thinking and reasoning, especially creative thinking.” We strongly disagree with the claim that this is hard to do with algorithms or information processing systems. These examples should show that creativity is not a supernatural power that can’t be explained by science. Instead, creativity is something that can be studied, copied, and used for the good of society. The field of computational creativity has changed, even though the rest of society is still trying to catch up. This growth and development can be seen in the amount of work done on the topic in recent years, the quality of the creative software we’re making, the importance of the cultural artifacts made by our programs, and, most importantly, the agreement we’re coming to on basic questions about computational creativity.
Making software that is unique is both a social and a technical challenge. We can’t move forward until we agree that robots are not people. The results of the software should be shouted from the rooftops. As a community, we should be proud of how we used cutting-edge AI to give the software a creative personality. Also, explaining the methods the programs used to create these works would help the general public recognize and appreciate them.
When we try to explain creativity, we often use vague words like “inspiration” and “intuition,” which add to the mystery of the creative process. But just because we don’t know how an idea started doesn’t mean there isn’t a scientific explanation for it. Even though we don’t know how people do things like understand language and spot patterns, we now have better artificial intelligence (AI) systems that can do them for us.
Nothing can come from nothing, so it’s important to know that every creative effort or creative thought is always preceded by a historical-cultural plan; it’s the result of cultural heritage and lived experiences.