Creativity isn’t magical. It’s an aspect of normal human intelligence, not a special faculty granted to a tiny elite. There are three forms: combinational, exploratory, and transformational. All three can be modeled by AI—in some cases, with impressive results. AI techniques underlie various types of computer art. Whether computers could “really” be creative isn’t a scientific question but a philosophical one, to which there’s no clear answer. But we do have the beginnings of a scientific understanding of creativity.

AAAI-10 will also include several special tracks, including the Nectar and Senior Member tracks, as well as specific research areas. Call for Papers for the main technical track and other tracks are available at www.aaai.org/aaai10.

The difference between comedians and their audience is a matter not of kind, but of degree, a difference that is reflected in the vocational emphasis they place on humor. Researchers in the field of computational creativity find themselves in a similar situation. As a subdiscipline of artificial intelligence, computational creativity explores theories and practices that give rise to a phenomenon, creativity, that all intelligent systems, human or machine, can legitimately lay claim to. Who is to say that a given AI system is not creative, insofar as it solves nontrivial problems or generates useful outputs that are not hard wired into its programming? As with comedians' being funny, the difference between studying computational creativity and studying artificial intelligence is one of emphasis rather than one of kind: the field of computational creativity, as typified by a long-running series of workshops at AIrelated conferences, places a vocational emphasis on creativity and attempts to draw together the commonalities of what

ICAART 2010 will be held January 22-24, 2010, in Valencia, Spain. International Conference on Intelligent This page includes forthcoming AAAI sponsored conferences, conferences presented User Interfaces. IUI 2010 will be by AAAI Affiliates, and conferences held in cooperation with AAAI. AI held February 7-10, 2010, in Hong Magazine also maintains a calendar listing that also includes nonaffiliated Kong. ICEIS 2010 will be held June 8-12, The International RuleML Symposium Stanford, California.

Such creative software can be used for autonomous creative tasks, such as inventing mathematical theories, writing poems, painting pictures, and composing music. However, computational creativity studies also enable us to understand human creativity and to produce programs for creative people to use, where the software acts as a creative collaborator rather than a mere tool. Historically, it's been difficult for society to come to terms with machines that purport to be intelligent and even more difficult to admit that they might be creative. 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. Groundbreaking for its time, this project was written up in a piece in Meccano Magazine. The article was titled "Are Thinking Machines Possible" 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 amazing advances in hardware and software technology that followed those meccano models?

This paper deals with computational approaches to storytelling, or the production of stories by computers, with a particular attention on the way human creativity is modelled or emulated, also in computational terms. Features relevant to creativity and to stories are analysed, and existing systems are reviewed under the light of that analysis.The extent to which they implement the key features proposed in recent models of computational creativity is discussed. Limitations, avenues of future research and expected trends are outlined.

The article is about AI research in the context of a complex artistic behavior: expressive music performance. A computer program is presented that learns to play piano with 'expression' and that even won an international computer piano performance contest. A superficial analysis of an expressive performance generated by the system seems to suggest creative musical abilities. After a critical discussion of the processes underlying this behavior, we abandon the question of whether the system is really creative, and turn to the true motivation that drives this research: to use AI methods to investigate and better understand music performance as a human creative behavior. A number of recent and current results from our research are briefly presented that indicate that machines can give us interesting insights into such a complex creative behavior, even if they may not be creative themselves.

The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, in cooperation with Stanford University's Department of Computer Science, was pleased to present the 2009 Spring Symposium Series, held Monday through Wednesday, March 23–25, 2009 at Stanford University. The titles of the nine symposia were Agents that Learn from Human Teachers, Benchmarking of Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Reasoning Systems, Experimental Design for Real-World Systems, Human Behavior Modeling, Intelligent Event Processing, Intelligent Narrative Technologies II, Learning by Reading and Learning to Read, Social Semantic Web: Where Web 2.0 Meets Web 3.0, and Technosocial Predictive Analytics. The goal of the Agents that Learn from Human Teachers was to investigate how we can enable software and robotics agents to learn from real-time interaction with an everyday human partner. The aim of the Benchmarking of Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Reasoning Systems symposium was to initiate the development of a problem repository in the field of qualitative spatial and temporal reasoning and identify a graded set of challenges for future midterm and long-term research. The Experimental Design symposium discussed the challenges of evaluating AI systems. The Human Behavior Modeling symposium explored reasoning methods for understanding various aspects of human behavior, especially in the context of designing intelligent systems that interact with humans. The Intelligent Event Processing symposium discussed the need for more AI-based approaches in event processing and defined a kind of research agenda for the field, coined as intelligent complex event processing (iCEP). The Intelligent Narrative Technologies II AAAI symposium discussed innovations, progress, and novel techniques in the research domain. The Learning by Reading and Learning to Read symposium explored two aspects of making natural language texts semantically accessible to, and processable by, machines. The Social Semantic Web symposium focused on the real-world grand challenges in this area. Finally, the Technosocial Predictive Analytics symposium explored new methods for anticipatory analytical thinking that provide decision advantage through the integration of human and physical models.

Despite the fact that AI has always been adventurous in trying to elucidate complex aspects of human behaviour, only recently has there been research into computational modelling of humor. One obstacle to progress is the lack of a precise and detailed theory of how humor operates. Nevertheless, since the early 1990s, there have been a number of small programs that create simple verbal humor, and more recently there have been studies of the automatic classification of the humorous status of texts. In addition, there are a number of advocates of the practical uses of computational humor: in user-interfaces, in education, and in advertising. Computer-generated humor is still quite basic, but it could be viewed as a form of exploratory creativity. For computational humor to improve, some hard problems in AI will have to be addressed.

It was written not by a human being, but by my computer program EWI (an acronym for "experiments in writing intelligence"). EWI was fed the texts of two of Hofstadter's books--namely, Gödel, Escher, Bach (winner of the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction in 1980) and Metamagical Themas--and then, following its code, EWI carefully analyzed these two books for their uniquely Hofstadterian stylistic elements and features, after which it recombined these stylistic elements in new fashions. EWI thereby came up with some 25 new and highly diverse "Hofstadter articles," one of which is given below, and the article is followed by a brief commentary about EWI and its output by Hofstadter himself. Actually, I should state up front that the wonderful sparkling dialogues of GEB, which are a substantial part of that book, were not used by EWI in generating any of the articles, because EWI is unfortunately not yet able to work with inputs that belong to different genres, such as chapters and dialogues. To combine stylistic aspects of two or more different genres of writing represents a very thorny challenge indeed. Endowing EWI with that extra level of flexibility is one of my next major goals.