Jeanette Falk
Faith Young
ABSTRACT
In this paper, we argue for the potential and relevance of modelling novel AI co-creative systems after key aspects which characterises the specific kind of design processes unfolding in hackathons. There has recently been an increased interest into the potentials and challenges of creative collaborations between humans and AI, however, there have not been many practical implementations of co-creative systems. We argue that by designing co-creative systems to support the specific kind of creative design work in hackathons, valuable contributions can be made in the context of an overlooked aspect in interaction design; how to support fast design thinking. The specificity of hackathon participation involves high demands for fast idea generation, decision-making, and prototyping, which ideally ends in a functioning and novel prototype. Specifically, we identify three key characteristics of hackathon participation, and for each characteristic we discuss how they may model Human-AI interaction in the context of co-creative systems for fast design thinking. The contribution of this paper is to provide future research on co-creative systems with inspiration grounded in the parallels between aspects of AI and key characteristics of hackathon participation.
- Zeynep Akata, Dan Balliet, Maarten De Rijke, Frank Dignum, Virginia Dignum, Guszti Eiben, Antske Fokkens, Davide Grossi, Koen Hindriks, Holger Hoos, 2020. A research agenda for hybrid intelligence: augmenting human intellect with collaborative, adaptive, responsible, and explainable artificial intelligence. Computer 53, 08 (2020), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2020.2996587Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Teresa M Amabile, Constance N Hadley, and Steven J Kramer. 2002. Creativity under the gun. Harvard business review 80 (2002), 52–63.Google Scholar
- Seth D Baum. 2021. Artificial Interdisciplinarity: Artificial Intelligence for Research on Complex Societal Problems. Philosophy & Technology 34, 1 (2021), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00416-5Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael Mose Biskjaer, Bo T Christensen, Morten Friis-Olivarius, Sille JJ Abildgaard, Caroline Lundqvist, and Kim Halskov. 2020. How task constraints affect inspiration search strategies. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 30, 1(2020), 101–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09496-7Google ScholarCross Ref
- Margaret A Boden. 2004. The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. Routledge.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Design Council. 2005. The ‘double diamond’design process model. Design Council (2005). https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/what-framework-innovation-design-councils-evolved-double-diamondGoogle Scholar
- Barbara Czarniawska. 2013. Is speed good?Scandinavian Journal of Management 29, 1 (2013), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2012.11.007Google Scholar
- Graham Dove, Kim Halskov, Jodi Forlizzi, and John Zimmerman. 2017. UX design innovation: Challenges for working with machine learning as a design material. In Proceedings of the 2017 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025739Google ScholarDigital Library
- Amy C Edmondson. 2012. Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Jeanette Falk, Gopinaath Kannabiran, and Nicolai Brodersen Hansen. 2021. What do hackathons do? Understanding participation in hackathons through program theory analysis. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445198Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jeanette Falk, Michael Mose Biskjaer, Kim Halskov, and Annakaisa Kultima. 2021. How Organisers Understand and Promote Participants’ Creativity in Game Jams. In Sixth Annual International Conference on Game Jams, Hackathons, and Game Creation Events. 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3472688.3472690Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jeanette Falk Olesen and Kim Halskov. 2020. 10 years of research with and on hackathons. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM designing interactive systems conference. 1073–1088. https://doi.org/10.1145/3357236.3395543Google ScholarDigital Library
- Meagan Flus and Ada Hurst. 2021. Design at hackathons: new opportunities for design research. Design Science 7(2021). https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/dsj.2021.1Google Scholar
- TW Frick and CM Reigeluth. 1999. Formative research: A methodology for creating and improving design theories. Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory 2(1999), 633–652.Google Scholar
- Liz Gerber. 2021. Keynote: Past, Present, and Future of Hackathon research. (2021). https://egerber.mech.northwestern.edu/author/emg142/ Hack the Hackathon: Shaping the Future of Hackathon Research and Practice, Lorentz Center.Google Scholar
- Connie J Gersick. 1995. Everything new under the gun. Creative (1995).Google Scholar
- James Gleick. 1999. Faster: The Acceleration of Just About Everything. Abacus (1999). https://www.jstor.org/stable/44638353Google Scholar
- Anna Grzymala-Busse. 2011. Time will tell? Temporality and the analysis of causal mechanisms and processes. Comparative Political Studies 44, 9 (2011), 1267–1297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414010390653Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lars Hallnäs and Johan Redström. 2001. Slow technology–designing for reflection. Personal and ubiquitous computing 5, 3 (2001), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00000019Google ScholarDigital Library
- Scarlett R Herring, Chia-Chen Chang, Jesse Krantzler, and Brian P Bailey. 2009. Getting inspired! Understanding how and why examples are used in creative design practice. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518717Google ScholarDigital Library
- Scarlett R Herring, Brett R Jones, and Brian P Bailey. 2009. Idea generation techniques among creative professionals. In 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2009.241Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kristina Höök, Sara Eriksson, Marie Louise Juul Søndergaard, Marianela Ciolfi Felice, Nadia Campo Woytuk, Ozgun Kilic Afsar, Vasiliki Tsaknaki, and Anna Ståhl. 2019. Soma Design and Politics of the Body. In Proceedings of the Halfway to the Future Symposium 2019. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3363384.3363385Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xiaoneng Jin, Mark Evans, Hua Dong, and Anqi Yao. 2021. Design heuristics for artificial intelligence: inspirational design stimuli for supporting UX designers in generating AI-powered ideas. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451727Google ScholarDigital Library
- Daniel Kahneman. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Udo Kannengiesser and John S Gero. 2019. Design thinking, fast and slow: A framework for Kahneman’s dual-system theory in design. Design Science 5(2019). https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/dsj.2019.9Google Scholar
- Anna Kantosalo, Prashanth Thattai Ravikumar, Kazjon Grace, and Tapio Takala. 2020. Modalities, Styles and Strategies: An Interaction Framework for Human-Computer Co-Creativity.. In ICCC. 57–64. http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc20/papers/ICCC20_Proceedings.pdfGoogle Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- Pegah Karimi, Jeba Rezwana, Safat Siddiqui, Mary Lou Maher, and Nasrin Dehbozorgi. 2020. Creative sketching partner: an analysis of human-AI co-creativity. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377325.3377522Google ScholarDigital Library
- Matthew Lewis. 2008. Evolutionary visual art and design. In The art of artificial evolution. Springer, 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72877-1_1Google Scholar
- Siân E Lindley. 2015. Making time. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. 1442–1452. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675157Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nora Mohammed. 2020. Extracting word synonyms from text using neural approaches.Int. Arab J. Inf. Technol. 17, 1 (2020), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.34028/iajit/17/1/6Google Scholar
- Alexander Nolte, Irene-Angelica Chounta, and James D Herbsleb. 2020. What Happens to All These Hackathon Projects? Identifying Factors to Promote Hackathon Project Continuation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2(2020), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415216Google ScholarDigital Library
- William Odom, Mark Selby, Abigail Sellen, David Kirk, Richard Banks, and Tim Regan. 2012. Photobox: on the design of a slow technology. In Proceedings of the designing interactive systems conference. 665–668. https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2318055Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jeanette Falk Olesen and Kim Halskov. 2018. The dynamic design space during a game jam. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Academic Mindtrek Conference. 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3275116.3275132Google ScholarDigital Library
- OpenAI. 2022. DALL·E 2. https://openai.com/blog/dall-e/Google Scholar
- Jonathan A Plucker, Ronald A Beghetto, and Gayle T Dow. 2004. Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational psychologist 39, 2 (2004), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1Google Scholar
- A Terry Purcell and John S Gero. 1991. The effects of examples on the results of a design activity. In Artificial Intelligence in Design’91. Elsevier, 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-1188-6.50031-4Google Scholar
- Janet Rafner, Miroslav Gajdacz, Gitte Kragh, Arthur Hjorth, Anna Gander, Blanka Palfi, Aleks Berditchevskaia, François Grey, Kobi Gal, Avi Segal, 2021. Revisiting Citizen Science Through the Lens of Hybrid Intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.14961(2021). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2104.14961Google Scholar
- Amon Rapp, William Odom, Larissa Pschetz, and Daniela Petrelli. 2022. Introduction to the special issue on time and HCI. Human–Computer Interaction 37, 1 (2022), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2021.1955681 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2021.1955681Google Scholar
- Jeba Rezwana and Mary Lou Maher. 2021. COFI: A Framework for Modeling Interaction in Human-AI Co-Creative Systems. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC ’21) (2021).Google Scholar
- Maciej Rys. 2021. Invention Development. The Hackathon Method. Knowledge Management Research & Practice(2021), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2021.1911607Google Scholar
- Joanna Saad-Sulonen, Eva Eriksson, Kim Halskov, Helena Karasti, and John Vines. 2018. Unfolding participation over time: temporal lenses in participatory design. CoDesign 14, 1 (2018), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2018.1426773Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ben Shneiderman. 2007. Creativity support tools: Accelerating discovery and innovation. Commun. ACM 50, 12 (2007), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/1323688.1323689Google ScholarDigital Library
- Barbara Simpson, Rory Tracey, and Alia Weston. 2020. The Timefulness of Creativity in an Accelerating World. Time, temporality, and history in process organization studies (2020), 69. https://doi.org/DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198870715.001.0001Google Scholar
- Wenn-Chieh Tsai, Amy Yo Sue Chen, Sheng-Yang Hsu, and Rung-Huei Liang. 2015. CrescendoMessage: Interacting with slow messaging. In Proceedings of the International Association of Societies of Design Research Conference. 2078–2095.Google Scholar
- Mikael Wiberg and Erik Stolterman. 2021. Time and Temporality in HCI Research. Interacting with Computers 33, 3 (2021), 250–270. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwab025Google ScholarCross Ref
- Qian Yang, Aaron Steinfeld, Carolyn Rosé, and John Zimmerman. 2020. Re-examining whether, why, and how human-AI interaction is uniquely difficult to design. In Proceedings of the 2020 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376301Google ScholarDigital Library
Recommendations
Too Late to be Creative? AI-Empowered Tools in Creative Processes
CHI EA '22: Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsThe present case study examines the product landscape of current AI-empowered co-creative tools. Specifically, I review literature in both creativity and HCI research and investigate how these tools support different stages in humans’ creative ...
10 Years of Research With and On Hackathons
DIS '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems ConferenceHackathon formats have been praised for their potential for promoting innovative thinking and making in a short time-frame. For this reason, hackathons have also been embraced by many researchers who use hackathons as part of their research in various ...
IdeaHound: Self-sustainable Idea Generation in Creative Online Communities
CSCW '16 Companion: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing CompanionOne main challenge in large creative online communities is helping their members find inspirational ideas from a large pool of ideas. A high-level approach to address this challenge is to create a synthesis of emerging solution space that can be used to ...
Comments