holtzermann17
commented
9 years ago In the Related Work section in a couple of places, comparisons with ideas and methods of evaluating creativity are now apparent. This is also related to #22, i.e. not viewing serendipity as a system trait. It is now clear from the case studies that no, not every system [including some of those discussed here] should be seen as serendipitous.
For example, the GAmprovising was previously assessed under a computational creativity framework. What insight can the authors gather from comparing these two views of the same system? Could any CC system be shoehorned into this serendipity model? If not, what are the necessary distinctions and constraints? If a counterexample of a CC system that is not considered serendipitous can be presented, it would greatly clarify the authors' position on this.
In part B of Step 2 of 3.1, the authors develop several evaluative dimensions of the serendipity trigger and the result it produced. They propose metrics that look a lot like metrics proposed for creative products: novelty, value, interestingness, etc. It seems that the authors are proposing the evaluation of the serendipitous act as a creative product itself, as a kind of intermediate invention on the road to the actual creative artefact that results from it. Evaluating a part of the creative process as a creative process itself (which produces a focus shift or new representation as a creative artefact, even if they are not directly externalised) is an interesting approach, and one that should probably be described explicitly.