arXiv:2606.13196cs.AIcs.CY2026-06

机器何时才算真正有创造力?关键在于系统性认知与人类协作机制。

Under What Conditions Can a Machine Be Called Genuinely Creative?

论文配图:Under What Conditions Can a Machine Be Called Genuinely Creative?
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 以设计学为框架,提出十项结构性要求界定机器创造力
  • 强调递归干预与环境更新,而非仅看输出新颖性或性能表现
  • 适合关注人机共创、AI伦理与智能系统设计的研究者

当前AI系统能生成文本、软件架构、科学假说、设计和科研流程,看似具备创造性。本文探讨机器在何种条件下可被视为真正具有创造力,并如何在人机共构的认知与创造环境中保持人类主导性。基于设计学(Designics)——意义导向的有意变革科学——构建了判断标准框架。论文指出,真正的机器创造力不应仅由输出新颖性、当前性能或临时架构决定,而应源于对不完整情境的结构性转变,通过递归干预动态实现。为此提出十项核心要求:环境表征、范围感知、冲突识别、干预能力、后果观察、知识与环境更新、重新定位、局部到全局展开、价值导向定位、人机共生。这些要求被归纳为设计学三定律:感知、冲突、能力。通过神经生理与工作负荷分析、递归元素提取、自主网格生成等案例,验证其计算可行性。文章将开放式系统、自动化发现框架、自修改代理、基础模型与代理工作流视为压力测试案例,表明它们虽具强大生成能力,但不足以构成真正的机器创造力。最后强调,主动式AI伦理必须内嵌于真实创造力之中,而非事后补充。价值定向定位与人机共生需贯穿创造过程的全链条:感知、冲突识别、干预选择、后果观测、知识更新与未来重定位。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Recent AI systems can generate texts, software architectures, hypotheses, designs, and scientific workflows that appear creative. This paper asks under what conditions a machine can be called genuinely creative, and how human agency can be preserved within shared cognitive and creative environments. It develops a requirement framework derived from Designics, the science of meaning-bearing intentional change. The paper argues that genuine machine creativity should not be defined by output novelty, current performance, or transient architecture alone. Instead, creativity is understood as the structural transformation of incomplete situations through recursive intervention dynamics. On this view, it depends on ten requirements: environment representation, scoped perception, conflict identification, intervention capability, consequence observation, knowledge and environment update, rescoping, local-to-global unfolding, value-based scoping, and human-AI co-living. These are organized through the three laws of Designics: perception, conflict, and capability. The paper illustrates the computational tractability of these requirements through selected cyber-physical and cyber-biological studies, including recursive element extraction, autonomous mesh generation, and neurophysiological and workload analysis. It then treats open-ended systems, automated discovery frameworks, self-modifying agents, foundation models, and agentic workflows as pressure cases: they demonstrate powerful generative means but do not by themselves establish genuine machine creativity. Finally, the paper argues that proactive AI ethics is internal to genuine machine creativity rather than an after-the-fact filter. Value-based scoping and human-AI co-living must shape how creative machines perceive environments, identify conflicts, select interventions, observe consequences, update knowledge, and rescope future action.

机器创造力人机协同AI伦理设计学

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。