Simon Colton from Department of Computing Imperial College in London messeges us in 2008 in his article  “Creativity Versus the Perception of Creativity in Computational Systems” about his position, lets go listen his text: 

To begin to prescribe how we might portray the behaviour of artefact generation processes, we first note that under normal circumstances, only the artist and, in some situations the audience, can have creativity attributed to them. 

When computers are used, however, it is commonplace for people to attribute creativity to the programmer in addition (or instead of) the software. This could be seen as a double standard, as creativity wouldn’t ordinarily be attributed to the teacher of a student who produced an artwork, but because the training of software is far more explicit than that of an art student, it is understandable. It is our responsibility to point out that the inclusion of random processes and the alteration of code through evolutionary means and/or machine learning methods will often mean that the behaviour of the software cannot be predicted by the programmer (which is the effect we are looking for). We must also note that there is a potential dichotomy in explaining computational processes: too little information will not feed the desire to understand what it is doing, but too much information might re-inforce the impression that the software is purely carrying out pre-defined (programmed) instructions.

Given the default position in the popular perception of machines that software cannot be creative, we can expect a certain amount of criticism towards any implication that software is being creative.

We can identify such criticisms as a set of necessary conditions, and manage them in our portrayal of the software processes. We propose to concentrate on three such necessary conditions, namely that the software exhibits behaviour which could be described as skillful, appreciative and imaginative. One can imagine a painter (human or otherwise) who lacks one of these three behaviours.

Without skill, they would never produce anything; without appreciation, they would never produce anything of value; and without imagination, at best they would only produce pastiches of other people’s work.

To aid in describing the behaviour of creative software in straightforward terminology, we introduce the notion of the creative tripod. The three legs of the tripod represent the three behaviours we require in our system: skill, appreciation and imagination, and only if all of these are present will the tripod supportthe perception of creativity. Moreover, the legs of tripods are extensible and a rethemselves split into three sections. We use this to highlight that there are three parties which could be perceived as contributing creatively when a consumer experiences a computer generated artwork, namely the programmer, the computer and the consumer. Moreover, each party can contribute skill, appreciation and imagination to the experience, and the relative extension of the nine sections spread over the three legs can be used to represent the relative size of the contribution. Our position is that, if we perceive that the software has been skillful, appreciative and imaginative, then, regardless of the behaviour of the consumer or programmer, the software should be considered creative. Without all three behaviours, it should not be considered creative, but the more aspects which extend each leg of the tripod, the more creativity we should project onto the software.

“Creativity Versus the Perception of Creativity in Computational Systems”, 
Simon Colton from Department of Computing Imperial College in London, 2008