Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter highlights historic and contemporary efforts to engineer artificial intelligence (AI) capable of producing artifacts previously associated with the creative arts. While creativity and artistic origination have historically been tied to art’s social value, AI art has recently begun to sell for high prices, and the promise of automating artistic production heralds new sectors of economic profit. Yet AI creativity also highlights the changing status of human innovation, origination, and newness in ways that deserve careful thought. The chapter then explores how future research in the field of computational creativity might benefit from a more robust appreciation for the uniquely nonhuman qualities of AI’s creativity, rather than its ability to imitate the human. AI’s exponentially intensifying capabilities raise meaningful and urgent questions of how to relate to a technology that, in many meaningful senses, invents itself. As automation, origination, and creativity cross-pollinate in unknowable ways, an intelligence both truly other and yet still conversant with human categories emerges. Thinking from the perspective of the humanities can help one negotiate this unprecedented challenge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it