skip to main content
10.1145/3524458.3547127acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgooditConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Work in Progress

Human-AI Co-creation Practice to Reconfigure the Cultural Emotion : Han

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 September 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Due to the characteristics of artificial intelligence, we believe the interaction process between AI and its creator can facilitate generating inspiration and creativity. Thus, we experimented in the most humanistic environment to explore whether it is possible for machines to intervene in the creation of human-like emotions, formed through culture and history. We also explored how artificial intelligence could broaden the creator’s scope of creative thinking and how useful it is for artistic creation. Hence, we set the theme of ‘Han’ which is a unique emotion that exists only in Korea. ‘Han’ is an extremely abstract and empirical emotion that originates from Korean history. In this study, we have created ethnic and cultural values through the co-creation process of AI and humans. Using a song created from the results of the above process, we surveyed 128 people and conducted in-depth interviews [4, 10] with four experts and artists to verify that this approach is effective for generating content that carries cultural values. Through this study, we came to two conclusions. First, with the Human-AI co-creation process, it is possible to make a cultural creation that people from the specific culture can actually sympathize with. Second, through this process, the composer can work faster and more effectively as well as getting more inspiration from sample tunes created by the AI. Further study will be conducted to determine whether this result is also valid in other general cases and to assure that this process can help artists to create a creation that holds cultural values.

References

  1. Kate Crawford and Trevor Paglen. 2019. Excavating AI: The politics of images in machine learning training sets. AI and Society (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Gerhard Fischer and Kumiyo Nakakoji. 1994. Amplifying designers’ creativity with domain-oriented design environments. In Artificial Intelligence and Creativity. Springer, 343–364.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Zachary Graber and William Henrion. 2021. Music For Me. (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Lisa Ann Guion, David C Diehl, and Debra McDonald. 2001. Conducting an in-depth interview. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and ….Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng-Zhi Anna Huang, Hendrik Vincent Koops, Ed Newton-Rex, Monica Dinculescu, and Carrie J Cai. 2020. AI Song Contest: Human-AI co-creation in songwriting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.05388(2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Rujing Huang, Bob LT Sturm, and André Holzapfel. 2021. DE-CENTERING THE WEST: EAST ASIAN PHILOSOPHIES AND THE ETHICS OF APPLYING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO MUSIC. In International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference, ISMIR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Pegah Karimi, Kazjon Grace, Mary Lou Maher, and Nicholas Davis. 2018. Evaluating creativity in computational co-creative systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.09886(2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Zhuying Li, Yan Wang, Wei Wang, Stefan Greuter, and Florian’Floyd’ Mueller. 2020. Empowering a creative city: engage citizens in creating street art through human-ai collaboration. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Maryon McDonald, Anthony P Cohen, Ronald J Frankenberg, RD Grillo, Teresa San Román, Moshe Shokeid, and Alex Weingrod. 1986. Celtic ethnic kinship and the problem of being English [and Comments and Replies]. Current Anthropology 27, 4 (1986), 333–347.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Zaharia Rodica Milena, Grundey Dainora, and Stancu Alin. 2008. Qualitative research methods: A comparison between focus-group and in-depth interview. Analele Universităţii din Oradea (2008), 1274.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Arthur I Miller. 2019. The artist in the machine: the world of AI-powered creativity. Mit Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Peter Mitrano, Arthur Lockman, James Honicker, and Scott Barton. 2017. Using recurrent neural networks to judge fitness in musical genetic algorithms. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Musical Metacreation (MUME) at the 8th International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC), Vol. 6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Hiroyuki Osone, Jun-Li Lu, and Yoichi Ochiai. 2021. BunCho: AI Supported Story Co-Creation via Unsupervised Multitask Learning to Increase Writers’ Creativity in Japanese. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Minhyang Suh, Emily Youngblom, Michael Terry, and Carrie J Cai. 2021. AI as Social Glue: Uncovering the Roles of Deep Generative AI during Social Music Composition. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ferdinand Sutterlüty. 2006. The belief in ethnic kinship: a deep symbolic dimension of social inequality. Ethnography 7, 2 (2006), 179–207.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Lidia Varbanova. 2007. Our creative cities online. The Creative City: Crossing Visions and New Realities in the Region (2007), 9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Zhuohao Wu, Danwen Ji, Kaiwen Yu, Xianxu Zeng, Dingming Wu, and Mohammad Shidujaman. 2021. AI Creativity and the Human-AI Co-creation Model. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 171–190.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Catherine Zimmer and Howard Aldrich. 1987. Resource mobilization through ethnic networks: Kinship and friendship ties of shopkeepers in England. Sociological perspectives 30, 4 (1987), 422–445.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. 김영필. 2004. 한국인의 한에 대한 현상학적 분석. 철학연구 92(2004), 115–136.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. 이재호. 2021. 한국인의 세대별 한(恨) 표상의 차이. 한국심리학회지:일반 40, 3 (2021), 269–299. https://doi.org/10.22257/kjp.2021.9.40.3.269Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. 최원선. 2010. Characteristics of Han as a Cognitive Cultural Concept in Korea. 우리춤과 과학기술 6, 3 (2010), 9–48.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Human-AI Co-creation Practice to Reconfigure the Cultural Emotion : Han

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      GoodIT '22: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Information Technology for Social Good
      September 2022
      436 pages
      ISBN:9781450392846
      DOI:10.1145/3524458

      Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 7 September 2022

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Work in Progress
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Upcoming Conference

      GoodIT '24
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)134
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)15

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format