How should we evaluate tools for thought? There's no simple metric, as far as I can tell. The best tools change your paradigm anyway, so your old metrics (books printed per year?) aren't what matter. Here's one (vague, but focusing): how much meaning is unlocked on the margin?
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
Odgovor korisniku/ci @andy_matuschak
Provocative question! This q is quite similar to what we grapple with in
#creativity research. Agree there is no simple metric, need to triangulate. NSF-sponsored creativity support tools workshop (led in part by@benbendc) had this as a major conclusion: http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/CST/Papers/creativitybook_final.pdf …pic.twitter.com/Qng9pt36Kf
1 proslijeđeni tweet 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa -
For me, one focusing point is the extent to which the conceptual space expands. So we should look for qualitative rather than quantitative shifts (or if quant, looking for changes in the function, not just slope).
0 proslijeđenih tweetova 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa
Margaret Boden's idea of "transformational creativity" is a nice conceptual grounding for this too. Nicely described here (although not the original paper): http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2015/proceedings/11_3Grace.pdf … - can be formalized with Bayesian surprise methods if you have good ways of mapping the domainpic.twitter.com/mNUaGISj3q
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.