Creativity in Humans, Robots, Humbots

Todd Lubart; Dario Esposito; Alla Gubenko; Claude Houssemand

doi:10.2478/ctra-2021-0003

Abstract

This paper examines three ways that robots can interface with creativity. In particular, social robots which are designed to interact with humans are examined. In the first mode, human creativity can be supported by social robots. In a second mode, social robots can be creative agents and humans serve to support robot’s productions. In the third and final mode, there is complementary action in creative work, which may be collaborative co-creation or a division of labor in creative projects. Illustrative examples are provided and key issues for further discussion are raised.

References

Addesi, A.R., & Pachet, F. (2005). Experiences with a musical machine: Musical style replication in 3 to 5 year old children. British Journal of Music Education, 22(1), 21–46.10.1017/S0265051704005972
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ali, S., Moroso, T., & Breazeal, C. (2019). Can children learn creativity from a social robot?. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Creativity and Cognition (pp. 359–368). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.10.1145/3325480.3325499
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Alves-Oliveira, P., Arriaga, P., Hoffman, G., & Paiva, A. (2016). Boosting children’s creativity through creative interactions with social robots. In 2016 11^th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 591–592). IEEE.10.1109/HRI.2016.7451871
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Alves-Oliveira, P., Arriaga, P., Paiva, A., & Hoffman, G. (2019). Guide to build YOLO, a creativity-stimulating robot for children. HardwareX, 6, e00074.10.1016/j.ohx.2019.e00074
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Alves-Oliveira, P., Chandak, A., Cloutier, I., Kompella, P., Moegenburg, P., & Bastos Pires, AE (2018). Yolo a robot that will make your creativity boom. Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 335–336).10.1145/3173386.3177822
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Alves-Oliveira, P., Gomes, S., Chandak, A., Arriaga, P., Hoffman, G., & Paiva, A. (2020). Software architecture for YOLO, a creativity-stimulating robot. SoftwareX, 11, 100461.10.1016/j.softx.2020.100461
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Arias, E., Eden, H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A., & Scharff, E. (2000). Transcending the Individual Human Mind–Creating Shared Understanding Through Collaborative Design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 7, 1 (2000), 84–113.10.1145/344949.345015
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Asada, M., Hosoda, K., Kuniyoshi, Y., Ishiguro, H., Inui, T., Yoshikawa, Y., Ogino, M. & Yoshida, C. (2009). Cognitive developmental robotics: A survey. IEEE Trans. on Autonomous Mental Development, 1(1), 12–34.10.1109/TAMD.2009.2021702
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., & Tanaka, F. (2018). Social robots for education: A review. Science robotics, 3(21), eaat5954.10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bretan, M., & Weinberg, G. (2016). A survey of robotic musicianship. Communications of the ACM, 59(5), 100–109.10.1145/2818994
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674251083
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Calinon, S., Guenter, F., & Billard, A. (2005). Goal-directed imitation in a humanoid robot. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp. 299–304). IEEE.10.1109/ROBOT.2005.1570135
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Calinon, S., Li, Z., Alizadeh, T., Tsagarakis, N.G., & Caldwell, D.G. (2012). Teaching of bimanual skills in a compliant humanoid robot. In Intl Workshop on Human-Friendly Robotics (HFR).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cangelosi, A. & Schlesinger, M. (2018). From babies to robots: the contribution of developmental robotics to developmental psychology. Child Development Perspectives, 12(3):183–188.10.1111/cdep.12282
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chen, H., Park, H.W., & Breazeal, C. (2020). Teaching and learning with children: Impact of reciprocal peer learning with a social robot on children’s learning and emotional engagement. Computers & Education, 150, 103836.10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103836
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chung, S. (2019). Drawing Operations, 2015.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391–404.10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511807916.018
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dautenhahn, K., & Billard, A. (1999). Bringing up robots or – the psychology of socially intelligent robots: from theory to implementation. In Proceedings of Autonomous Agents (pp. 366–367). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.10.1145/301136.301237
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dautenhahn, K., Ogden, B., & Quick, T. (2002). From embodied to socially embedded agents – implications for interaction-aware robots. Cognitive Systems Research, 3, 397–428.10.1016/S1389-0417(02)00050-5
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dautenhahn K. (2007). Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human-robot interaction. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 362(1480), 679–704.10.1098/rstb.2006.2004
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Davis, N.M., Popova, Y., Sysoev, I., Hsiao, C.P., Zhang, D., & Magerko, B. (2014). Building Artistic Computer Colleagues with an Enactive Model of Creativity. In ICCC (pp. 38–45).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
De Graaf, M.M.A., Allouch, S.B., & Klamer, T. (2015). Sharing a life with Harvey: Exploring the acceptance of and relationship-building with a social robot. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.03010.1016/j.chb.2014.10.030
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Duffy, B.R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8890(02)00374-310.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133–156.10.1080/13639080020028747
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Engeström, Y., & Miettinen, R. (1999). Activity theory: A well-kept secret. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1–38). New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511812774
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fitzgerald, T., Goel, A.K., & Thomaz, A. (2017). Human-Robot Co-Creativity: Task Transfer on a Spectrum of Similarity. In ICCC (pp. 104–111).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., & Dautenhahn K. (2002). A survey of socially interactive robots: concepts,design, and applications. Technical Report No. CMU-RI-TR-02-29. Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gazeau, J.P., & Zeghloul, S. (2012). The artist robot: A robot drawing like a human artist. In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (pp. 486–491). IEEE.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gibson, J.J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Glăvenau, V.P. (2012). What can be done with an egg? Creativity, material objects and the theory of affordances. Journal of Creative Behavior, 46, 192–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.1310.1002/jocb.13
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Glăvenau, V.P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: the five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17, 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/a002952810.1037/a0029528
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Glăveanu, V.P., Hanchett Hanson, M., Baer, J., Barbot, B., Clapp, E.P., Corazza, G.E., ... & Sternberg, R.J. (2020). Advancing creativity theory and research: A socio-cultural manifesto. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(3), 741–745.10.1002/jocb.395
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gordon, G., Breazeal, C., & Engel, S. (2015). Can children catch curiosity from a social robot?. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 91–98).10.1145/2696454.2696469
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gubenko, A., Kirsch, C., Smilek, J.N., Lubart, T., & Houssemand, C. (2021). Educational Robotics and Robot Creativity: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8(178).10.3389/frobt.2021.662030
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Guerin, F., Ferreira, P. (2019). Robot Manipulation in Open Environments: New Perspectives. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental System, 12(3), (pp. 669–675).10.1109/TCDS.2019.2921098
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hoffmann, O. (2016). On Modeling Human-Computer Co-Creativity. In S. Kunifuji, G.A. Papadopoulos, A.M.J. Skulimowski, & J. Kacprzyk, (Eds.), Knowledge, Information and Creativity Support Systems (pp. 37–48). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-27478-2_3
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hoffman, G., & Weinberg, G. (2011). Interactive improvisation with a robotic marimba player. Autonomous Robots, 31(2–3), 133–153.10.1007/s10514-011-9237-0
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Höflich, J.R., & El Bayed, A. (2015). Perception, Acceptance, and the Social Construction of Robots—Exploratory Studies. Social Robots from a Human Perspective, 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15672-9_410.1007/978-3-319-15672-9_4
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jones, R.A. (2017). What makes a robot ‘social’? Social Studies of Science, 47(4), 556–579.10.1177/0306312717704722
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kahn Jr, P.H., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Freier, N.G., Severson, R.L., Gill, B.T., ... & Shen, S. (2012). “Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now”: Children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Developmental psychology, 48(2), 303.10.1037/a0027033
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kahn, P.H., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Gill, B.T., Shen, S., Ruckert, J.H., & Gary, H.E. (2016). Human creativity can be facilitated through interacting with a social robot. In 2016 11^th ACM / IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 173–180). IEEE.10.1109/HRI.2016.7451749
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kantosalo, A., Falk, M., & Jordanous, A. (2021). Embodiment in 18th Century Depictions of Human-Machine Co-Creativity. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8(190).10.3389/frobt.2021.662036
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kato, I., Ohteru, S., Shirai, K., Matsushima, T., Narita, S., Sugano, S., ... & Fujisawa, E. (1987). The robot musician ‘wabot-2’ (waseda robot-2). Robotics, 3(2), (pp. 143-155).10.1016/0167-8493(87)90002-7
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Leont’ev, A.N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Leite, I., Martinho, C., & Paiva, A. (2013). Social Robots for Long-Term Interaction: A Survey. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(2), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0178-y10.1007/s12369-013-0178-y
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lindblom, J., & Ziemke, T. (2003), Social situatedness of natural and artificial intelligence: Vygotsky and beyond. Adaptive Behavior, 11, 79–96.10.1177/10597123030112002
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Luo, RC, & Liu, YJ (2018). Robot Artist Performs Cartoon Style Facial Portrait Painting. In 2018 IEEE / RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (pp. 7683–7688). IEEE.10.1109/IROS.2018.8594147
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lungarella, M., Metta, G., Pfeifer, R., & Sandini, G. (2004). Developmental robotics: a survey. Connection science, 15(4), 151–190.10.1080/09540090310001655110
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
MacDorman, K.F. (2019). La Vallée de l’Étrange de Mori Masahiro. e-Phaïstos, (VII-2). https://doi.org/10.4000/ephaistos.533310.4000/ephaistos.5333
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Magnenat-Thalmann, N., Yuan, J., Thalmann, D., & You, B.-J. (Eds.). (2016). Context Aware Human-Robot and Human-Agent Interaction. Human–Computer Interaction Series. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19947-410.1007/978-3-319-19947-4
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Min, H., Yi, C., Luo, R., Zhu, J. & Bi, S. (2016). Affordance research in developmental robotics: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, 8(4), 237–255.10.1109/TCDS.2016.2614992
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mitchell, M. (2021). Why AI is Harder Than We Think. In: arXiv: 2104.1287110.1145/3449639.3465421
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mori, M., MacDorman, K., & Kageki, N. (2012). The Uncanny Valley [From the Field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/mra.2012.219281110.1109/MRA.2012.2192811
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
OECD. (2019). OECD future of education and skills 2030–Conceptual learning framework–Concept note: Student agency for 2030. Paris: Editions OECD.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
OECD (2021). OECD Digital Education Outlook 2021 : Pushing the Frontiers with Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and Robots. Paris: Editions OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/589b283f-en10.1787/589b283f-en
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Oliveira, P.A. (2020). Boosting children’s creativity through creative interactions with social robots. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348293686_Boosting_Children’s_Creativity_through_Creative_Interactions_with_Social_Robots
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Otero, N., Saunders, J., Dautenhahn, K., & Nehaniv, C.L. (2008). Teaching robot companions: the role of scaffolding and event structuring. Connection Science, 20(2–3), 111–134.10.1080/09540090802091925
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pachet, F. (2003). The continuator: Musical interaction with style. Journal of New Music Research, 32(3), 333–341.10.1076/jnmr.32.3.333.16861
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pakrasi, I., Chakraborty, N., Cuan, C., Berl, E., Rizvi, W., & LaViers, A. (2018). Dancing droids: an expressive layer for mobile robots developed within choreographic practice. In International Conference on Social Robotics (pp. 410-420). Springer, Cham.10.1007/978-3-030-05204-1_40
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pan, Y., Kim, MG, & Suzuki, K. (2010). A Robot Musician Interacting with a Human Partner through Initiative Exchange. In NIME (pp. 166-169).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Park, H.W., Rosenberg-Kima, R., Rosenberg, M., Gordon, G., & Breazeal, C. (2017). Growing growth mindset with a social robot peer. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 137-145).10.1145/2909824.3020213
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Park, H.W., Grover, I., Spaulding, S., Gomez, L., & Breazeal, C. (2019). A model-free affective reinforcement learning approach to personalization of an autonomous social robot companion for early literacy education. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 33, No. 01, pp. 687–694).10.1609/aaai.v33i01.3301687
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Peng, H., Zhou, C., Hu, H., Chao, F., & Li, J. (2015). Robotic dance in social robotics — a taxonomy. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 45(3), 281–293.10.1109/THMS.2015.2393558
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Resnick, L.B., Levine, J.M., & Teasley, S.D. (Eds.). (1991). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. American Psychological Association.10.1037/10096-000
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Runco, M.A., & Jaeger, G.J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Russell, S.J., & Norvig, P. (2010). Artificial Intelligence-A Modern Approach (3. internat. ed.). Pearson Education.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Saerbeck, M., Schut, T., Bartneck, C., & Janse, M.D. (2010, April). Expressive robots in education: varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI 10 (pp. 1613–1622).10.1145/1753326.1753567
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sandry, E. (2017). Creative collaborations with machines. Philosophy & Technology, 30(3), 305–319.10.1007/s13347-016-0240-4
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Smith, G. F. (1998). Idea-generation techniques: A formulary of active ingredients. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 32(2), 107–134.10.1002/j.2162-6057.1998.tb00810.x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Smith L.B., & Gasser M. (2005). The development of embodied cognition: six lessons from babies. Artificial Life, 11, 13–30.10.1162/1064546053278973
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Suzuki, K., & Hashimoto, S. (2004). Robotic interface for embodied interaction via dance and musical performance. Proceedings of the IEEE, 92(4), 656–671.10.1109/JPROC.2004.825886
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thrun, S., Hähnel, D., Ferguson, D., Montemerlo, M., Triebel, R., Burgard, W., Baker, C., Omohundro, Z., Thayer, S., & Whittaker, W. (2003). A system for volumetric robotic mapping of abandoned mines. In 2003 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. 3I(10) (pp. 4270–4275).10.1109/ROBOT.2003.1242260
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thrun, S. (2004). Toward a framework for human-robot interaction. Human–Computer Interaction, 19(1–2), 9–24.10.1207/s15327051hci1901&;2_2
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Toubia, O., Berger, J., & Eliashberg, J. (2021). How quantifying the shape of stories predicts their success. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(26).10.1073/pnas.2011695118
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tresset, P., & Leymarie, FF (2013). Portrait drawing by Paul the robot. Computers & Graphics, 37(5), 348–363.10.1016/j.cag.2013.01.012
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
U.N. and I.F.R.R. (2002). United Nations and The International Federation of Robotics. World Robotics 2002. New York–Geneva: United Nations.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ventura, D. (2016, June). Mere generation: Essential barometer or dated concept. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Computational Creativity (pp. 17-24). Paris: Sony CSL.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Weinberg, G., Driscoll, S., & Parry, M. (2005, August). Musical interactions with a perceptual robotic percussionist. In ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005 (pp. 456-461). IEEE.10.1109/ROMAN.2005.1513821
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zagoruyko, S., & Komodakis, N. (2015). Learning to compare image patches via convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 4353-4361).10.1109/CVPR.2015.7299064
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zlatev, J. (2001). The epigenesis of meaning in human beings, and possibly in robots. Minds and Machines, 11, 155–195.10.1023/A:1011218919464
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Creativity in Humans, Robots, Humbots

Abstract

Paradigm

My account