CAN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT CREATIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING?

J. Orzechowski, Daria Kamińska, P. Jemioło
{"title":"CAN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT CREATIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING?","authors":"J. Orzechowski, Daria Kamińska, P. Jemioło","doi":"10.36315/2022inpact040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\"The process of creative problem-solving and stimulating innovation in organizations is long, costly, and high-risked. While risk is by definition included in the creative process, ideation can cut down time and costs of fostering innovative solutions. Inventive systems such as TRIZ (?????? ??????? ???????????????? ?????), CPS (Creative Problem-Solving) or DT (Design Thinking), have paved the way in supporting creators, designers, inventors and scientists in innovative solutions seeking. However, only a few of these systems are scientifically proven to be effective. It seems that CPS, initiated by Osborn, is the best evidence-based inventive system, as well as it is still developed both in empirical research, and in real-life practice (Buijs, Smulders & van der Meer, 2009; Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004; Puccio, Murdock & Mance, 2005). The main assumption of CPS is that creating innovative ideas is a phase process, i.e. following a certain universal pattern. Baer and Kaufman (2005) argue that CPS involves various skills, especially domain-specific creativity (i.e. related to expert knowledge), which is embedded in general abilities such as intelligence and motivation. However, the use of CPS requires high-class experts who are not only specialists in a specific field but also trained in creative problem-solving. Regardless of the costs, it is a bottleneck for the application of such inventive techniques on a larger scale. Therefore, new approaches in development of AI-powered creative tools to assist creators and designers seem to be emerging. One of them is @CREATE – an expert inventive system based on CPS and supported by artificial intelligence. The idea of @CREATE will be presented by the authors.\"","PeriodicalId":120251,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Applications and Trends","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Applications and Trends","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36315/2022inpact040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

"The process of creative problem-solving and stimulating innovation in organizations is long, costly, and high-risked. While risk is by definition included in the creative process, ideation can cut down time and costs of fostering innovative solutions. Inventive systems such as TRIZ (?????? ??????? ???????????????? ?????), CPS (Creative Problem-Solving) or DT (Design Thinking), have paved the way in supporting creators, designers, inventors and scientists in innovative solutions seeking. However, only a few of these systems are scientifically proven to be effective. It seems that CPS, initiated by Osborn, is the best evidence-based inventive system, as well as it is still developed both in empirical research, and in real-life practice (Buijs, Smulders & van der Meer, 2009; Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004; Puccio, Murdock & Mance, 2005). The main assumption of CPS is that creating innovative ideas is a phase process, i.e. following a certain universal pattern. Baer and Kaufman (2005) argue that CPS involves various skills, especially domain-specific creativity (i.e. related to expert knowledge), which is embedded in general abilities such as intelligence and motivation. However, the use of CPS requires high-class experts who are not only specialists in a specific field but also trained in creative problem-solving. Regardless of the costs, it is a bottleneck for the application of such inventive techniques on a larger scale. Therefore, new approaches in development of AI-powered creative tools to assist creators and designers seem to be emerging. One of them is @CREATE – an expert inventive system based on CPS and supported by artificial intelligence. The idea of @CREATE will be presented by the authors."
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人工智能能支持创造性的问题解决吗?
“在组织中创造性地解决问题和激励创新的过程是漫长、昂贵和高风险的。虽然从定义上讲,风险包含在创意过程中,但创意可以减少培养创新解决方案的时间和成本。创造性的系统,如TRIZ (??????)? ??????????????????????), CPS(创造性解决问题)或DT(设计思维),为支持创作者,设计师,发明家和科学家寻求创新解决方案铺平了道路。然而,这些系统中只有少数被科学证明是有效的。由Osborn发起的CPS似乎是最好的基于证据的发明系统,并且在实证研究和现实实践中仍在发展(Buijs, Smulders & van der Meer, 2009;Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004;Puccio, Murdock & Mance, 2005)。CPS的主要假设是创造创新的想法是一个阶段性的过程,即遵循一定的普遍模式。Baer和Kaufman(2005)认为CPS涉及各种技能,特别是特定领域的创造力(即与专业知识相关),这是嵌入在智力和动机等一般能力中的。然而,使用CPS需要高级专家,他们不仅是特定领域的专家,而且还接受过创造性解决问题的培训。抛开成本不谈,这是这种创新技术大规模应用的瓶颈。因此,帮助创作者和设计师的人工智能创意工具的开发新方法似乎正在出现。其中之一是@CREATE——一个基于CPS、人工智能支持的专业创新系统。@CREATE的想法将由作者提出。”
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
LINKING MODAL AND AMODAL REPRESENTATIONS THROUGH LANGUAGE COMPUTATIONAL MODELS CLINICAL ASSESSMENT IN A PROFESSIONAL SETTING: ARE THERE IMPLICATIONS FOR SELF-REPORTS OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGY? MALADAPTIVE COGNITIONS AND EMOTIONAL REGULATION IN PTSD DOES VACCINE SCARCITY INFLUENCE THE EFFECT OF CONSPIRACY BELIEFS ON INTENTION TO VACCINATE AGAINST COVID-19? SOURCES OF TRANSITION-TO-WORK SELF-EFFICACY: CAREER EXPLORATION AND SOCIAL SUPPORT
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1