CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 4

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

When happy accidents spark creativity: Bringing collaborative speculation to life with generative AI

Epstein, Ziv, Schroeder, Hope, Newman, Dava·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2206.00533arXiv 2206.00533
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Generative AI techniques like those that synthesize images from text (text-to-image models) offer new possibilities for creatively imagining new ideas. We investigate the capabilities of these models to help communities engage in conversations about their collective future. In particular, we design and deploy a facilitated experience where participants collaboratively speculate on utopias they want to see, and then produce AI-generated imagery from those speculations. In a series of in-depth user interviews, we invite participants to reflect on the generated images and refine their visions for the future. We synthesize findings with a bespoke community zine on the experience. We observe that participants often generated ideas for implementing their vision and drew new lateral considerations as a result of viewing the generated images. Critically, we find that the unexpected difference between the participant's imagined output and the generated image is what facilitated new insight for the participant. We hope our experimental model for co-creation, computational creativity, and community reflection inspires the use of generative models to help communities and organizations envision better futures.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2206.00533

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Dunne, A., and Raby, F. 2013. Speculative everything: de- sign, fiction, and social dreaming. MIT press.
  2. Epstein, Z.; Boulais, O.; Gordon, S.; and Groh, M. 2020a. Interpolating gans to scaffold autotelic creativity. Inter- national Conference on Computational Creativity Causal Creator Workshop.
  3. Epstein, Z.; Levine, S.; Rand, D. G.; and Rahwan, I. 2020b. Who gets credit for ai-generated art? Iscience 23(9):101515.
  4. Lavin, A.; Gilligan-Lee, C. M.; Visnjic, A.; Ganju, S.; Newman, D.; Ganguly, S.; Lange, D.; Baydin, A. G.; Sharma, A.; Gibson, A.; et al. 2021. Technology readi- ness levels for machine learning systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.03989. · arXiv
  5. Lütjens, B.; Crawford, C. H.; Veillette, M.; and Newman, D. 2021a. Pce-pinns: Physics-informed neural networks for uncertainty propagation in ocean modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.02939. · arXiv
  6. Lütjens, B.; Leshchinskiy, B.; Requena-Mesa, C.; Chishtie, F.; Díaz-Rodríguez, N.; Boulais, O.; Sankaranarayanan, A.; Piña, A.; Gal, Y.; Raïssi, C.; et al. 2021b. Physically- consistent generative adversarial networks for coastal flood visualization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.04785. · arXiv
  7. Pérez y Pérez, R., and Ackerman, M. 2020. Towards a methodology for field work in computational creativity. New Generation Computing 38(4):713-737.
  8. Radford, A.; Kim, J. W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 8748-8763. PMLR.
  9. Rafner, J.; Hjorth, A.; Risi, S.; Philipsen, L.; Dumas, C.; Biskjær, M. M.; Noy, L.; Tylén, K.; Bergenholtz, C.; Lynch, J.; et al. 2020. crea. blender: A neural network- based image generation game to assess creativity. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, 340-344.
  10. Ramesh, A.; Dhariwal, P.; Nichol, A.; Chu, C.; and Chen, M. 2022. Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125. · arXiv
  11. Saldaña, J. 2013. The coding manual for qualitative re- searchers. SAGE.
  12. Sepie, A. J. 2017. More than stories, more than myths: Animal/human/nature (s) in traditional ecological world- views. Humanities 6(4):78.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Epstein, Z., Schroeder, H., & Newman, D.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2206.00533
arXiv
2206.00533
References
0
Type
Preprint
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review