Seen in → No.195
As mentioned above, Herbert L. Roitblat reviews some of our brains’ quirks and how AI does not address them, perhaps never will completely. It’s a much more fleshed our and relevant twist on the ‘computer can’t be creative’ argument we often see, plus it can even be read just out of curiosity about the brain. To circle the article back to creativity, the author’s description of insights and of Kahneman’s “slow, deliberate, and more accurate system” lines up very well with the design squiggle, variations of which happen in writing and various creative endeavours.
[I]nsight problems are characterized by a kind of restructuring of the solver’s approach to the problem. In path problems, the solver is given a representation, which includes a starting state, a goal state, and a set of tools or operators that can be applied to move through the representation. In insight problems, the solver is given none of these. […]
With insight problems, it is often difficult to determine whether any progress at all has been made until the problem is essentially solved. They’re often associated with the “Eureka effect,” or “Aha! moment,” a sudden realization of a previously incomprehensible solution. […]
The main barrier to solving problems like this is to abandon the default representation and adopt a more productive one. Once the alternative representation is identified, the rest of the problem-solving process may be very rapid. […]
Analytic problem solving is directly applicable to systems that gain their capabilities through optimization of a set of parameters. On the other hand, if the problem requires divergent thinking, commonsense knowledge, or creativity, then computers will continue to lag behind humans for some time.