Augmenting People's Creative Idea Generation Using an Artificial Intelligent Sketching Collaborator

Authors: Joseph Maloba Makokha

Abstract:

Idea generation is an important part of the design process, and many strategies to support this stage have been developed. As artificial intelligence (AI) gains adoption in many domains, we need to understand its role, if any, in the design process. This paper introduces the concept of a “Disruptive Interjector”, an AI system that frequently interjects with suggestions based on observing what a user does. The concept emanates from a study that was conducted with pairs of humans on one hand, and human-AI pairs on the other collaborating on idea generation by sketching. Results from a study show that participants who collaborated with, and took cues from the AI sketch suggestions generated more ideas; and also had more ideas ranked by experts as “creative” compared to two humans working together on the same tasks. It is notable that while researchers from diverse fields of engineering, psychology, art and others have explored conditions and environments that enhance people's creativity - and have provided insights on creativity in general - there still exists a gap on the role that AI can play on creativity. We attempt to narrow this gap.

Keywords: Artificial intelligence, design collaboration, creativity, human-machine collaboration, machine learning.

References:

[1] Arnold, J. E. (1956). Creativity in engineering. SAE Transactions, 17-23.
[2] Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(2), 357.
[3] Boden, M. A. (2010). Creativity and art: Three roads to surprise. Oxford University Press.
[4] Langley, P. (2018). Planning systems and human problem solving. Advances in Cognitive Systems, 7, 13-22.
[5] Wertheimer, M., & In Sarris, V. (2020). Max Wertheimer productive thinking. Cham: Springer.
[6] Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. The American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
[7] Bruner, J. The conditions of creativity. In Gruber, H. E., In Terrell, G., In Wertheimer, M., & University of Colorado (Boulder campus). (1962). Contemporary approaches to creative thinking: A symposium held at the University of Colorado.
[8] Barron, F. (1955). The disposition toward originality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 478.
[9] Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1962). The processes of creative thinking. In Contemporary Approaches to Creative Thinking, 1958, University of Colorado, CO, US; This paper was presented at the aforementioned symposium. Atherton Press.
[10] Licklider, J. C. (1960). Man-computer symbiosis. IRE transactions on human factors in electronics, (1), 4-11.
[11] Herbert A. Simon, & Allen Newell. (1958). Heuristic Problem Solving: The Next Advance in Operations Research. Operations Research, 6(1), 1.
[12] Lindsey, R., Daluiski, A., Chopra, S., Lachapelle, A., Mozer, M., Sicular, S., ... & Potter, H. (2018). Deep neural network improves fracture detection by clinicians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11591-11596.
[13] Curioni-Fontecedro, A. (2017). A new era of oncology through artificial intelligence. ESMO open, 2(2).
[14] Drozdal, J., Weisz, J., Wang, D., Dass, G., Yao, B., Zhao, C., ... & Su, H. (2020, March). Trust in AutoML: exploring information needs for establishing trust in automated machine learning systems. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 297-307).
[15] Yaqoob, I., Khan, L. U., Kazmi, S. A., Imran, M., Guizani, N., & Hong, C. S. (2019). Autonomous driving cars in smart cities: Recent advances, requirements, and challenges. IEEE Network, 34(1), 174-181.
[16] Eschenbach, T. (2011) “Engineering Economy: Applying Theory to Practice” Oxford University Press. Sec. 1.3
[17] Bamber, E. M., Watson, R. T., & Hill, M. C. (1996). The effects of group support system technology on audit group decision making. Auditing, 15, 122-134.
[18] Karan, V., Kerr, D. S., Murthy, U. S., & Vinze, A. S. (1996). Information technology support for collaborative decision making in auditing: An experimental investigation. Decision Support Systems, 16(3), 181-194.
[19] Kerr S. David, Murthy S. Uday Divergent and Convergent Idea Generation in Teams: A Comparison of Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, July 2004 V13 No.4, pp 381-399
[20] Schar, M. F. (2011). Pivot thinking and the differential sharing of information within new product development teams. Stanford University
[21] MacLellan, C. J., Langley, P., Shah, J., & Dinar, M. (2013). A computational aid for problem formulation in early conceptual design. Journal of computing and information science in engineering, 13(3).
[22] Whiting, M., Mettenburg, J., Novelli, E., LeDuc, P., & Cagan, J. (2022). Inducing Vascular Grammars for Anomaly Classification in Brain Angiograms. Journal of Engineering and Science in Medical Diagnostics and Therapy.
[23] Tversky, B., Suwa, M., Agrawala, M., Heiser, J., Stolte, C., Hanrahan, P., ... & Haymaker, J. (2003). Sketches for design and design of sketches. In Human behaviour in design (pp. 79-86). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
[24] Shah, J. J., Smith, S. M., & Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2003). Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design studies, 24(2), 111-134.
[25] Hay, L., Duffy, A. H., Grealy, M., Tahsiri, M., McTeague, C., & Vuletic, T. (2020). A novel systematic approach for analysing exploratory design ideation. Journal of Engineering Design, 31(3), 127-149.
[26] Leifer, L., & Meinel, C. (2019). Looking further: design thinking beyond solution-fixation. In Design Thinking Research (pp. 1-12). Springer, Cham.
[27] Dinar, M., Shah, J. J., Cagan, J., Leifer, L., Linsey, J., Smith, S. M., & Hernandez, N. V. (2015). Empirical studies of designer thinking: past, present, and future. Journal of Mechanical Design, 137(2), 021101.