DOCSLIB.ORG

Teaching Computational Creativity Margareta Ackerman1, Ashok Goel2, Colin G

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Teaching Computational Creativity Margareta Ackerman1, Ashok Goel2, Colin G Teaching Computational Creativity Margareta Ackerman1, Ashok Goel2, Colin G. Johnson3, Anna Jordanous3, Carlos Le´on4, Rafael P´erezy P´erez5, Hannu Toivonen6, and Dan Ventura7. 1 Computer Engineering Department, Santa Clara University. [email protected]. 2 School of Interactive Computing, Georgia Tech. [email protected] 3 School of Computing, University of Kent. fC.G.Johnson, [email protected] 4 Department of Software Engineering and Artificial Intelligence, Complutense University of Madrid. [email protected] 5 Depto. de Tecnolog´ıasde la Informaci´on,Universidad Aut´onomaMetropolitana. [email protected] 6 Department of Computer Science, University of Helsinki. [email protected] 7 Computer Science Department, Brigham Young University. [email protected] Abstract • Master theoretical and conceptual tools for analysing and discussing creative systems The increasing popularity of computational creativity (CC) in recent years gives rise to the need for educa- • Develop and understand one's own creative processes tional resources. This paper presents several modules that together act as a guide for developing new CC • Become familiar with the latest advances in CC, and courses as well as improving existing curricula. As well be able to critically discuss current state-of-the-art as introducing core CC concepts, we address pedagog- • Become able to create CC systems and/or techniques ical approaches to this interdisciplinary subject. An accessible overview of the field lets this paper double • Gain the ability to describe, employ and debate as an introductory tutorial to computational creativity. methods for evaluation of computational creativity • Be able to identify appropriate contexts for using CC Introduction In what follows, we offer examples of extant CC sys- As computational creativity (CC) grows in popular- tems that can be used as archetypes for introducing ity, it is increasingly being taught in some form as a key questions in the field; discuss different modeling university-level course. However, at this point, there approaches and how they provide complementary ac- does not exist any cannonical pedagogy nor accepted counts of the theory; address human vs. computational textbook for the subject; thus it may be useful to begin creativity and how both play a role in CC education; a discussion on pedagogy, topics, best practices, etc. discuss some key AI techniques and issues that may be We feel that a CC course is clearly an important part appropriately integrated into a CC course; provide some of the study of (at least) artificial intelligence (AI), and examples of lessons learned, sample assignments and offer some talking points to explain why: suggested best practices; and discuss interdisciplinary • It provides a method of approaching AI holistically. approaches to CC education. • It may appeal to traditionally underrepresented This paper is aimed at: groups in CS and related fields, e.g. female students. • CC researchers who would like to teach computa- • It is a next step in building more robust intelligent tional creativity but may not be sure where to start; systems. • Those who already teach CC, who would like to ex- • It broadens views of constituent parts of intelligence. pand and further develop their courses; • It allows students the opportunity to critically reflect • Researchers new to CC, but perhaps familiar with AI about human and computer creativity (which may or related fields, who would be able to use this paper help improve their own creativity). as a starting point to learn about the field. • Being interdisciplinary, it exposes our students to other fields of study, which helps expand their hori- Introducing Computational Creativity zons and allows them to experience new perspectives. What is computational creativity, and how should we To begin the discussion, then, we offer the following introduce it to our students? We present a working defi- as a guide list of learning objectives for a CC course: nition and select several systems that can be introduced • Begin to think about computation in new ways in a CC course to illustrate central ideas in the field along with discussion questions targeting these ideas. • Understand central questions and challenges in com- We discuss several philosophically differing approaches putational creativity (intentionality, evaluation, ab- to CC. Lastly, we mention connections between CC and straction vs. domain specialization, sociality, etc.) human creativity, which provide another accessible en- • Understand the difference between mere generation try point into this field while revealing some of its in- and computational creativity terdisciplinary facets. Defining Computational Creativity be regarded as creative? Would a system's outputs Recently the PROSECCO research network has de- be regarded as creative if generated by a child? fined computational creativity as \an emerging field • DARCI (Norton, Heath, and Ventura 2013). What that studies and exploits the potential of computers to be role does intention play in creativity? How do percep- more than feature-rich tools, and to act as autonomous tual grounding and communicating intention relate? creators and co-creators in their own right. In a CC system, the creative impetus comes from the machine, • IDEAL (Goel and Bhatta 2004) How do designers not the user, though in a hybrid CC system a joint impe- generate and evaluate design ideas for novel prob- tus may come from both together."(Intro to CC ). How- lems? What role does analogical thinking play in ever, the definition of computational creativity has a idea generation? What role does systems thinking complex and argued history, and indeed debates around play in evaluating a design idea? its definition—or simply the definition of creativity tout • MILA (Goel and Joyner 2015) How do scientists court|can be an interesting way to engage students in make new discoveries? And model observed phe- the subject, much as arguments around the nature of nomenon? How can we support citizen scientists and intelligence can enlighten a discussion of artificial intel- student scientists in conducting authentic science? ligence. Below we present several alternate approaches • Poem Machine (Kantosalo et al. 2014) How can a to defining CC that can be used to spark this discussion. computer and a human collaborate in co-creating? Complementary to giving a formal, intentional, defi- What does it take to transform a creative system to nition of CC is to provide examples of systems that have support human-computer co-creation? Can creative been argued as being creative and to engage students authorship be shared? in discussions about why these systems are, or are not, creative. Furthermore, an interesting contrast can be • Artificial Creativity (Saunders and Gero 2001) How drawn with human creative systems; taking a CC sys- do societies of creative agents behave? When is cre- tem and a human system with similar types of outputs, ativity an emergent property of a society? and considering whether one is creative and the other • ER-Model (P´erezy P´erezand Sharples 2001). Can not, is an interesting and informative exercise. a computer model of creativity be used in multiple Some of the systems that we have found useful|and domains? What are the differences and similarities the CC topics/questions that they are useful in intro- between those implementations? ducing to students| include: • The Painting Fool (Colton 2012). Is it necessary for Approaches to Computational Creativity CC systems to be able to explain their creative deci- Several different approaches to computational creativ- sions? How can a CC system draw on external world ity have been proposed. Here we discuss some notable knowledge? Does engaging with artworld economics approaches suitable for introducing CC. In particular, help us value the creativity of a CC system? we contrast the operational, product-centered approach • AARON (McCorduck 1991). To what degree can a with the cognitive perspective that focuses on the cre- system of parameterised outputs and constraints be ative process. Another popular model, expressing cre- considered to act in a creative way? Where does the ative methods as a search problem, is also discussed. creativity lie in a system that has been developed over Cognitive vs. Engineering Approach One ap- several decades, where the outputs from the system proach to the problem of computational creativity have influenced the development of the system? might be characterized as operational, as the study and • Emotive music generation (Monteith 2012). How im- simulation, by computational means, of behaviour, nat- portant is evoking an emotional response in an audi- ural and artificial, which would, if observed in humans, ence for an artistic CC system? Does it matter that be deemed creative (Colton and Wiggins 2012). As Jor- computers can't \feel" the emotion? Does a human danous points out, from this perspective \the challenge creative artist need to be able to feel the emotion that is to engineer a system that would be judged to be cre- they are aiming to engender in their audience? ative by its audience, rather than engineering a sys- • Experiments in Musical Intelligence (Cope 1996). tem that possesses a level of creativity existing indepen- What kind of creativity can be generated by analysis dently of an audience's perception" (Jordanous 2012b). and abstraction from a corpus of existing material? In general terms, this kind of approach employs math- Where does pastiche end and creativity begin? What ematical models and engineering methods. is the role of inspirational examples in CC systems? A second approach might be characterized as an in- terdisciplinary study of the creative process employing • Mexica (P´erezy P´erez1999). What are the differ- computers as the core tool for reflection and generation ences between the creativity needed to create struc- of new knowledge (P´erezy P´erez2015a). This per- tures (e.g. for stories) and that for creating language? spective emphasizes the importance of contributing to • The Joking Computer (Ritchie and Masthoff 2011). the understanding of the creative process.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Combinational Creativity and Computational Creativity
    Combinational Creativity and Computational Creativity By Ji HAN Dyson School of Design Engineering Imperial College London A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy April 2018 Originality Declaration The coding of the Combinator and the Retriever was accomplished in collaboration with Feng SHI, a PhD colleague in the Creativity Design and Innovation Lab at the Dyson School of Design Engineering, Imperial College London, and co-author with me of relevant publications. Except where otherwise stated, this thesis is the result of my own research. This research was conducted in the Dyson School of Design Engineering at Imperial College London, between October 2014 and December 2017. I certify that this thesis has not been submitted in whole or in parts as consideration for any other degree or qualification at this or any other institute of learning. Ji HAN April 2018 II Copyright Declaration The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commericial No Derivitives licence. Researchers are free to copy, distribute or transmit the thesis on the condition that they attribute it, that they do not use it for commercial purposes and that they do not alter, transform or build upon it. For any reuse or redistribution, researchers must make clear to others the license terms of this work. Ji HAN April 2018 III List of Publications The following journal and conference papers were published during this PhD research. Journal Publications 1. Han J., Shi F., Chen L., Childs P. R. N., 2018. The Combinator – A computer-based tool for creative idea generation based on a simulation approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Computational Creativity
    Computational Creativity Hannu Toivonen University of Helsinki [email protected] www.cs.helsinki.fi/hannu.toivonen ECSS, Gothenburg, 9 Oct 2018 8.10.2018 1 The following video clips, pictures and audio files have been removed from this file to save space: – Video: Poemcatcher tests ”Brain Poetry” machine at Frankfurt Book Fair: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNnbTQL8j B4 – Images produced by Deep Dream, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeepDream – Audio clip: music produced by a programme by Turing and his colleagues www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto 9.10.2018 2 Remote Associates Test (RAT) – What word relates to all of these three words? – coin – silver coin – quick – quick silver – spoon – silver spoon – Measures the ability to discover relationships between remotely associated concepts – A (controversial) psychometrical test of creativity – Correlates with IQ and originality in brain storming www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto 8.10.2018 3 Modeling RATs computationally – A single RAT question is a quadruple – A probabilistic approach: find that maximizes – Maximize (cf. naïve Bayes) www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto 8.10.2018 4 Modeling RATs computationally – Learn word frequencies from a large corpus – Use Google 1 and 2-grams to estimate probabilities and – (Google n-grams: a large, publically available collection of word sequences and their probabilities) – A lot more could be done, but we want to keep things as simple as possible – Creative behavior without an explicit semantic resource (such as WordNet) www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto 8.10.2018
    [Show full text]
  • Collaboratively Designing Metrics to Evaluate Creative Machines
    ISEA 2020 MEASURING COMPUTATIONAL CREATIVITY: COLLABORATIVELY DESIGNING METRICS TO EVALUATE CREATIVE MACHINES EUNSU KANG JEAN OH ROBERT TWOMEY WELCOME! :D WE UNDERSTAND WE CANNOT MEASURE EVERY ASPECT OF CREATIVITY BUT WE WANT TO FIGURE OUT THE MEASURABLE ASPECTS OF CREATIVITY WE ARE HERE FOR • Collectively brainstorming evaluation metrics and producing a set of metrics. • Creating a map of metrics to help us have a better view on the problem • Building a community that contributes to this difficult task OUR SCHEDULE TODAY IS • Introduction (20 min) • Small group discussion: Elements of creative AI (30 min) • Sharing the first discussion results (15 min) • Invited speaker panel 1 (35 min) • Small group discussion 2: Evaluating selected projects (30 min) • Sharing the second discussion results (15 min) • Invited speaker panel 2 (35 min) • Small group discussion 3: Revising metrics, evaluating the second project (30 min) • Presentation of results and Q&A (30 min) • 5 min breaks as needed PANEL DISCUSSIONS BY INVITED SPEAKERS Panel 1: Graham Wakefield, Haru Ji, Fabrizio Poltronieri, Allison Parrish, Aaron Hertzmann • What are your methods and metrics for evaluating the creative AI system that you and your colleagues have developed? • How does the study of creative AI systems inform human creative practice? • How do we attribute (who is responsible for) the creativity in collaborative creative systems? • Do you think there is a difference between creative AI and human creativity? What would be the difference? If not, why not. PANEL DISCUSSIONS
    [Show full text]
  • Explainable Computational Creativity
    Explainable Computational Creativity Maria Teresa Llano Mark d’Inverno Matthew Yee-King SensiLab, Monash University Goldsmiths, University of London Goldsmiths, University of London Melbourne, Australia London, United Kingdom London, United Kingdom Jon McCormack Alon Ilsar Alison Pease Simon Colton SensiLab, Monash University SensiLab, Monash University Dundee University SensiLab, Monash University Melbourne, Australia Melbourne, Australia Dundee, United Kingdom Queen Mary, University of London Abstract for intermediate explanations as the process progresses, let Human collaboration with systems within the Computational alone place for exchanges of information that can exploit Creativity (CC) field is often restricted to shallow interac- human-machine co-creation. tions, where the creative processes, of systems and humans alike, are carried out in isolation, without any (or little) inter- In this paper we propose Explainable Computational Cre- vention from the user, and without any discussion about how ativity (XCC) as a subfield of XAI. The focus of this subfield the unfolding decisions are taking place. Fruitful co-creation is the study of bidirectional explainable models in the con- requires a sustained ongoing interaction that can include dis- text of computational creativity – where the term explainable cussions of ideas, comparisons to previous/other works, in- is used with a broader sense to cover not only one shot-style cremental improvements and revisions, etc. For these interac- explanations, but also for co-creative interventions
    [Show full text]
  • Download Thesis
    Department of Computer Science Series of Publications A Report A-2021-4 Computational Understanding, Generation and Evaluation of Creative Expressions Khalid Alnajjar Doctoral dissertation, to be presented for public discussion with the permission of the Faculty of Science of the University of Helsinki, in Auditorium B123, Exactum, Pietari Kalmin katu 5, on the 22nd of March, 2021 at 12:00 o’clock. The defence is also open for the audience through remote access. University of Helsinki Finland Supervisor Hannu Toivonen, University of Helsinki, Finland Pre-examiners Josep Blat, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain Tapio Salakoski, University of Turku, Finland Opponent Pablo Gervás, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain Custos Hannu Toivonen, University of Helsinki, Finland Faculty Representative Teemu Roos, University of Helsinki, Finland Contact information Department of Computer Science P.O. Box 68 (Pietari Kalmin katu 5) FI-00014 University of Helsinki Finland Email address: [email protected].fi URL: https://cs.helsinki.fi/ Telephone: +358 2941 911 Copyright c 2021 Khalid Alnajjar ISSN 1238-8645 ISBN 978-951-51-7145-0 (paperback) ISBN 978-951-51-7146-7 (PDF) Helsinki 2021 Unigrafia Computational Understanding, Generation and Evaluation of Creative Expressions Khalid Alnajjar Department of Computer Science P.O. Box 68, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland khalid.alnajjar@helsinki.fi https://www.khalidalnajjar.com/ https://www.rootroo.com/ PhD Thesis, Series of Publications A, Report A-2021-4 Helsinki, March 2021, 56 pages ISSN 1238-8645 ISBN 978-951-51-7145-0 (paperback) ISBN 978-951-51-7146-7 (PDF) Abstract Computational creativity has received a good amount of research interest in generating creative artefacts programmatically.
    [Show full text]
  • Computational Creativity: Coming of Age
    Editorial Computational Creativity: Coming of Age Simon Colton, Ramon López de Mántaras, and Oliviero Stock n This editorial provides an introduction to current AI research on computationally created A artifacts as well as to the papers and topics cov- t its heart, computational creativity is the study of build- ered by this special issue on computational cre- ing software that exhibits behavior that would be deemed cre- ativity. ative in humans. Such creative software can be used for autonomous creative tasks, such as inventing mathematical the- ories, writing poems, painting pictures, and composing music. However, computational creativity studies also enable us to understand human creativity and to produce programs for cre- ative people to use, where the software acts as a creative collab- orator rather than a mere tool. Historically, it’s been difficult for society to come to terms with machines that purport to be intel- ligent and even more difficult to admit that they might be cre- ative. For instance, in 1934, some professors at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom built meccano models that were able to solve some mathematical equations. Groundbreak- ing for its time, this project was written up in a piece in Mecca- no Magazine. The article was titled “Are Thinking Machines Pos- sible” and was very upbeat, but surprisingly ends by stating that “Truly creative thinking of course will always remain beyond the power of any machine.” Surely, though, this attitude has changed in light of the amaz- ing advances in hardware and software technology that fol- lowed those meccano models? Sadly, no.
    [Show full text]
  • The Computational Creativity Complex
    The Computational Creativity Complex Dan Ventura Abstract We briefly examine the subject of computational creativity through the lenses of three different systems for producing creative artifacts in three different domains: music, visual art and cookery. From these we attempt to abstract some- thing of a “general-purpose” computationally creative agent and examine how this agent might behave in the context of an archetypical “algorithm” for creativity. Fi- nally, we consider this agent’s behavior from the point of view of the theory of (Turing) computability and suggest that computational creativity as a field provides an interesting opportunity for looking at computational complexity in new ways. 1 Inception The question of computational creativity can be approached from several different angles. Here we assume that creativity is possible in computational systems and examine the idea of a general, abstract mechanism for computational creativity that exists somehow independently from any particular domain. This is a difficulty ques- tion, and it is clear that much of creativity is not a domain independent construct. However, we posit that there does exist some core abstraction or creativity “algo- rithm” that can be applied to any domain (with suitable domain-specific augmen- tation, of course). Given this hypothesis, we attempt an inductive approach to the problem by first examining three computationally creative systems in three differ- ent domains and then attempt to generalize from these specific examples an abstract model of a creative system. As a complementary view of the problem, we also discuss an abstract “al- gorithm” for creativity and relate this “algorithm” to the abstract system, asking whether this “algorithm” could, in fact, become an algorithm in the formal sense, Dan Ventura Computer Science Department, Brigham Young University, e-mail: [email protected] 1 2 Dan Ventura and attempt to reason about the answer to that question.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critical Review of Computational Creativity in Built Environment Design
    buildings Review A Critical Review of Computational Creativity in Built Environment Design Ning Gu * and Peiman Amini Behbahani UniSA Creative, University of South Australia, Adelaide 5001, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Computational creativity in built environment (BE) design has been a subject of research interest in the discipline. This paper presents a critical review of various ways computational creativ- ity has been and can be defined and approached in BE design. The paper examines a comprehensive body of contemporary literature on the topics of creativity, computational creativity, and their assess- ment to identify levels of computational creativity. The paper then proceeds to a further review of the implications of these levels specifically in BE design. The paper identifies four areas in BE design where computational creativity is relevant. In two areas—synthesis (generation) and analysis—there is considerable literature on lower levels of computational creativity. However, in two other areas— interfacing and communication—even the definition of computational creativity is not as defined and clear for the discipline, and most works only consider the role of computers as a supporting tool or medium. These open up future research opportunities for the discipline. Keywords: computational creativity; human–computer (co-)creativity; creativity support tools; built environment design 1. Introduction As the use of computation and artificial intelligence has increased in built environment Citation: Gu, N.; Amini Behbahani, P. (BE) design, their roles in supporting creativity, a quintessential quality of design, have A Critical Review of Computational been examined more frequently [1–4]. Each of these topics—computation, creativity, and Creativity in Built Environment Design.
    [Show full text]
  • Artistic Creativity in Artificial Intelligence
    Artistic Creativity in Artificial Intelligence a dissertation presented by Deniz E. Kurt to The Department of Creative Industries in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the subject of Arts & Culture Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands April 2018 ©2018 – Deniz E. Kurt all rights reserved. Thesis advisor: Dr. Vincent Meelberg Deniz E. Kurt Artistic Creativity in Artificial Intelligence Abstract Computational art is a creative field that indicates to a futuristic idea of artificial intelligence. De- spite the common belief that a machine is unable to create art, current developments and examples in computational art present a new form of art. Reaching to a broad variety of artistic dimensions, artificial intelligence programs are generating poetry, music, visual art, architecture and design. This study introduces artificial intelligence as an artistic phenomenon and analyzes the artifacts that are produced by computer algorithms. Thus, it provides a theoretical framework and a philosophical dis- cussion on the creative abilities of artificial intelligence. Furthermore, it concerns with the entitlement of artiness, by presenting a reflection on the dynamics between the artwork, the art-maker and the art audience. The analysis of computational artworks and the computer programs that generate those artworks show that the function of artificial intelligence is far beyond being merely a tool to create art, it is rather an actor that have an artistic and creative agency. With this study, I suggest an alternative approach in the conceptual definition of art, which can help to explore the possibilities of a new art genre. iii Contents 0 Introduction 1 1 Human Intelligence vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Associative Algorithms for Computational Creativity
    LAV R. VARSHNEY JUN WANG KUSH R. VARSHNEY Special Issue on Creativity and Food Associative Algorithms for Computational Creativity ABSTRACT Computational creativity, the generation of new, unimagined ideas or artifacts by a machine that are deemed creative by people, can be applied in the culinary domain to create novel and flavorful dishes. In fact, we have done so successfully using a combina- torial algorithm for recipe generation combined with statistical models for recipe ranking and selection. However, the algorithm of creation in our prior work may be difficult for people to interpret, understand, and ultimately adopt because the process differs from the process of human creativity theorized in the psychology and neuroscience literatures. In this paper, to address this issue, we discuss how human creativity, including in the food arena, may be built on associations and how an algorithm also built on associations can be more relatable to people so they can interact with the tool more easily. We pro- pose a computational creativity approach that extends the data mining technique of asso- ciation rule mining to generate new food recipes. We illustrate this associative algorithm on real-world culinary data. Keywords: association mining, computational creativity, food. Computational creativity is the use of computers to generate and select ideas or arti- facts that would be regarded as creative if produced by people alone. This area of study has a long history with workers motivated by disparate goals. Some researchers are after scientific understanding of the mind, whereas others have the technological goal of pro- ducing useful tools; some practitioners may try to illuminate the psychological processes underlying creativity, whereas others try to produce esthetically interesting results (Boden, 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Developing Creative AI to Generate Sculptural Objects
    Developing Creative AI to Generate Sculptural Objects Songwei Ge∗, Austin Dill?, Eunsu Kang?, Chun-Liang Li?, Lingyao Zhang Manzil Zaheer, Barnabas Poczos Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA, United States fchunlial, eunsuk, songweig, lingyaoz, abdill, manzil, [email protected] Abstract We explore the intersection of human and machine creativ- ity by generating sculptural objects through machine learning. This research raises questions about both the technical details of automatic art generation and the interaction between AI and people, as both artists and the audience of art. We introduce two algorithms for generating 3D point clouds and then dis- cuss their actualization as sculpture and incorporation into a holistic art installation. Specifically, the Amalgamated Deep- Dream (ADD) algorithm solves the sparsity problem caused by the naive DeepDream-inspired approach and generates cre- ative and printable point clouds. The Partitioned DeepDream (PDD) algorithm further allows us to explore more diverse 3D object creation by combining point cloud clustering algorithms Figure 1: Sculpture generated by creative AI, PDD. and ADD. sculptures. Nima et al. [27] introduced Vox2Netadapted from Keywords pix2pix GAN which can extract the abstract shape of the input Partitioned DeepDream, Amalgamated DeepDream, 3D, sculpture. DeepCloud [5] exploited an autoencoder to gener- Point Cloud, Sculpture, Art, Interactive Installation, Creative ate point clouds, and constructed a web interface with analog AI, Machine Learning input devices for users to interact with the generation process. Similar to the work of Lehman et al [22], the results generated Introduction by DeepCloud are limited to previously seen objects. In this paper, we introduce two ML algorithms to create Will Artificial Intelligence (AI) replace human artists or will original sculptural objects.
    [Show full text]
  • Bridging Generative Deep Learning and Computational Creativity
    Bridging Generative Deep Learning and Computational Creativity Sebastian Berns 1 and Simon Colton 1, 2 1 Game AI Group, EECS, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom 2 SensiLab, Faculty of IT, Monash University, Australia Abstract by way of the creative AI community, and we propose av- enues for improvements and cross-community engagement. We aim to help bridge the research fields of generative deep learning and computational creativity by way of the creative In the section below, we make a case for generative mod- AI community, and to advocate the common objective of els as a successful and powerful technology which is inher- more creatively autonomous generative learning systems. We ently limited in its creative abilities by its uni-dimensional argue here that generative deep learning models are inher- objective of perfection. The following section discusses ently limited in their creative abilities because of a focus on how, in spite of its limitations, GANs have been used and learning for perfection. To highlight this, we present a se- abused as artwork production engines. We then explore how ries of techniques which actively diverge from standard us- computational creativity research can contribute to further age of deep learning, with the specific intention of producing evolve such models into more autonomous creative systems, novel and interesting artefacts. We sketch out some avenues looking specifically at novelty measures as a first step to- for improvement of the training and application of genera- wards this goal. We conclude by returning to the notion of tive models and discuss how previous work on the evaluation of novelty in a computational creativity setting could be har- bridging the two fields and describing future work.
    [Show full text]