How Models of Creativity and Analogy Need to Answer the Tailorability Concern - Computational Creativity Research: Towards Creative Machines - page 102

CLARION [ 42 ] and LISA [ 29 ]. And finally, we are seeking to leverage analogical
reasoning in order to engineer systems capable of automatic programming. 7
With profound gratitude, the support of both the John Templeton Foundation and
AFOSR is acknowledged.

References

1. Aamodt, A., Plaza, E.: Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations,
and system approaches. AI Commun. 7 (1), 39-59 (1994)
2. Arkoudas, K., Bringsjord, S.: Vivid: an ai framework for heterogeneous problem solving. Artifi-
cial Intelligence 173(15), 1367-1405 (2009). http://kryten.mm.rpi.edu/vivid_030205.pdf. The
http://kryten.mm.rpi.edu/vivid/vivid.pdf provides a preprint of the penultimate draft only. If
for some reason it is not working, please contact either author directly by email
3. Auer, S., Bizer, C., Kobilarov, G., Lehmann, J., Cyganiak, R., Ives, Z.: DBpedia: a nucleus for
a web of open data. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Semantic Web Conference (2007)
4. Bartha, P.F.: By Parallel Reasoning: The Construction and Evaluation of Analogical Arguments.
Oxford University Press, New York (2010)
5. Boden, M.A.: Creativity and unpredictability. Stanford Humanit. Rev. 4 (2), 123-139 (1995)
6. Boden, M.A.: Computer models of creativity. AI Mag. 30 (3), 23-34 (2009)
7. Bollacker, K., Evans, C., Paritosh, P., Sturge, T., Taylor, J.: Freebase: a collaboratively created
graph database for structuring human knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD
International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD'08), ACM (2008)
8. Bringsjord, S.: Could, how could we tell if, and why should-androids have inner lives? In: Ford,
K., Glymour, C., Hayes, P. (eds.) android epistemology, pp. 93-122. MIT Press, Cambridge
(1995)
9. Bringsjord, S.: Psychometric artificial intelligence. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 23 (3), 271-277
(2011)
10. Bringsjord, S., Ferrucci, D., Bello, P.: Creativity, the turing test, and the (better) lovelace test.
Mind. Mach. 11 , 3-27 (2001)
11. Bringsjord, S., Licato, J.: Psychometric Artificial General Intelligence: The Piaget-Macgyver
Room. In: Wang, P., Goertzel, B. (eds.) Theoretical Foundations of Artificial General Intelli-
gence. Atlantis Press (2012). http://kryten.mm.rpi.edu/Bringsjord_Licato_PAGI_071512.pdf
12. Bringsjord, S., Noel, R.: Real robots and the missing thought experiment in the chinese room
dialectic. In: Preston, J., Bishop, M. (eds.) Views Into The Chinese Room: New Essays on
Searle and Artificial Intelligence, pp. 144-166. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)
13. Bringsjord, S., Schimanski, B.: What is artificial intelligence? psychometric ai as an answer. In:
Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-03),
pp. 887-893. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA (2003). http://kryten.mm.rpi.edu/scb.bs.
pai.ijcai03.pdf
14. Burstein, M.H.: Analogy vs CBR: the purpose of mapping. In: Proceedings from the Case-based
Reasoning Workshop, pp. 133-136. Pensacola Beach, Florida (1989)

7 In the case of automatic programming, the input shown in Fig. 5.2 would be instantiated as the
informal definition of a number-theoretic function (where that definition can be partly linguistic and
partly visual), and the answer is code in some conventional programming language, accompanied
by a proof of the correctness of this code relative to the input. Automatic-programming systems
seemingly require the ability to judge two programs analogous. More precisely, such systems
seemingly would need to be able to answer this question: Given a set of programs P in some
programming language, can the system produce a similarity metric ρ : P × P → R capturing

which pairs of programs are semantically analogous?