{"word_count": 953, "character_count": 5959}
 In 1950, Alan Turing published on Computing machinery and intelligence  what would later become known as the “Turing’s test”. The objective of  his test was to set a criterion for evaluating the intelligence of a  machine, ultimately claiming that if it could have been mistaken for a  human being, then it could be considered intelligent. The test and its  actual reliability have often been criticized and discussed, and yet,  seventy years later, not only have machines far exceeded the conditions  set, but the debate has also shifted to trying to understand if they can  be defined as creative. Hugo Férée - Opera propria (CC-BY-SA 3.0)Scheme representing the Turing test: three are the participants (A, B  and C). A is a man, B a woman and C any person who has to guess through a  series of questions who is the man and who is the woman. B also has to  help C in the task, while A has to hinder him. A, however, is replaced  by a machine and the aim is still to pass himself off as a human being  and make the sexes guess. If C can guess anyway, the machine will have  passed the Turing test. We are looking for a definitionWhat seems to puzzle most critics and experts in the field – as well as  us common people – is the perception that creativity is something  ontologically connected to man and his introspection. As a result, it is  unlikely for people to associate this capacity with artificial  intelligence (AI) unless we want to insinuate – and this question is  already at the center of many debates – that the machine can have a  consciousness and a proprioception. While not addressing this issue  here, there are nonetheless supporters of AI’s creativity according to  whom machines can and are creative. The first to propose this point of  view is Margaret Boden,  an AI expert, a pioneer in the world of cognitive science and a member  of that group of scholars working to create a new discipline called  “computational creativity”. Since there is no single definition for  creativity, it’s worth understanding how Boden stands in relation to it  and how she defines it. The expert frames and describes 3 different  types of creativity: Exploratory creativity:  try to expand the limits of something already discovered;Combination crativity:  the ability to combine aspects and arguments in an unconventional way;tranformative creativity:  it revolutionizes the course of history or a matter (e.g. the inventions already mentioned above);As far as an exploratory kind of creativity is concerned, if you take  into consideration the fact that machines are already used as a tool  that allows man to expand his creative ability, this aspect is already  amazing in itself. However, if this is not enough, let’s mention a  couple of rather destabilizing examples. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p2ARIJmKio&#38;feature=emb_title Margaret Boden explains how one can define creativity AARONThe most famous case of possible art created by AI, in fact, is that of AARON, an algorithm created by Harold Cohen  that from its first programming does nothing but produce paintings of  its own elaboration, continuing even after the death of its creator.  This last data, in fact, can make us think that the machine, after the  programmer’s death, has acquired independence and – if we add to this  the fact that Cohen himself has always said that AARON was actually able  to make decisions by itself thanks to the ability to generate random  number series – we are further inclined to give it at least a certain  degree of autonomy. This case proves to be very fascinating, to the  point of remaining at the center of many scholars’ discussion and being  an inspiration for other researchers in the artistic-artificial field,  but there is another case that may raise even more doubts about the  absence of creativity in the machines. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGUs5HChE3M&#38;feature=emb_titleSome works by AARONDeepMindIn 2016 the company DeepMind challenged the world champion of Go – an ancient Chinese game similar to chess – with its new algorithm called AlphaGo.  AlphaGo was born a few years earlier with the aim of understanding to  what level the machines could try their hand at an activity in which  both intelligence and creativity are important. Expectations were  clearly against the machine, with people all over the world believing it  would be an almost certain defeat. The battle between the two  challengers was hard-fought, but AlphaGo not only managed to win, but  indeed managed to tear his opponent to shreds, and, with a single move –  the number 37 – to revolutionize the entire game mode.&#160;If  it cannot be unquestionably claimed that this is a clear example of  creativity, it can at least be implied or presumed. The DeepMind team  itself was stunned by such an unexpected event. The machine had expanded  the established limits of a centuries-old game by shattering them. Now  the game of Go has regained notoriety and moves never conceived before –  based precisely on move number 37 – are being created and studied. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xlSy9F5WtE&#38;feature=emb_title Explanation of the rules of Go and illustration of the game between AlphaGo and Lee Sedol In the light of this victory and of the behaviour displayed by the  machines described in the examples provided above we can state that  Turing’s test has been largely overtaken by them and, indeed, we could  ask: “if I saw a picture made by AARON, if I read a book entirely  written by a software or if I saw that famous game of Go, and I didn’t  know that behind it there is an algorithm, would I consider all of this  creative?” To learn moreBarzon, Beatrice (2018). «Creative AI: la creatività computazionale nell’arte».&#160;Spindox: Digital Soul, 15 gennaio. URL&#160;https://www.spindox.it/it/blog/creativita-computazionale-arte/&#160;2020/06/04Du Sautoy, Marcus (2019).&#160;Il codice della creatività. Milano: Rizzoli Editore.