Artificial Intelligence & Creativity: A Manifesto for Collaboration

With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI), the field of creativity faces new opportunities and challenges. This manifesto explores several scenarios of human–machine collaboration on creative tasks and proposes “fundamental laws of generative AI” to reinforce the responsible and ethical use of AI in the creativity field. Four scenarios are proposed and discussed: “Co-Cre-AI-tion,” “Organic,” “Plagiarism 3.0,” and “Shut down,” each illustrating different possible futures based on the collaboration between humans and machines. In addition, we have incorporated an AI-generated manifesto that also highlights important themes, ranging from accessibility and ethics to cultural sensitivity. The fundamental laws proposed aim to prevent AIs from generating harmful content and competing directly with humans. Creating labels and laws are also highlighted to ensure responsible use of AIs. The positive future of creativity and AI lies in a harmonious collaboration that can benefit everyone, potentially leading to a new level of creative productivity respecting ethical considerations and human values during the creative process

COVID-19: A Boon or a Bane for Creativity?

In many countries, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a period of lockdown that impacted individual’s lifestyles, in both professional and personal spheres. New problems and challenges arose, as well as opportunities. Numerous studies have examined the negative effects of lockdown measures, but few have attempted to shine light on the potential positive effects that may come out of these measures. We focused on one particular positive outcome that might have emerged from lockdown: creativity. To this end, this paper compared professional creativity (Pro-C) and everyday creativity (little-c) before and during lockdown, using a questionnaire-based study conducted on a French sample (N = 1266). We expected participants to be more creative during than prior to lockdown, in both professional and everyday spheres. Regarding professional creativity, we did not see any significant differences between the two comparison points, before and during lockdown. Regarding everyday creativity, we observed a significant increase during lockdown. Furthermore, our results suggest that participants with a lower baseline creativity (before lockdown) benefited more from the situation than those with a higher initial baseline creativity. Our results provide new insights on the impact of lockdown and its positive outcomes. These measures may have inarguably negative consequences on the physical and mental health of many, but their positive impact exists as well

COVID-19: A Boon or a Bane for Creativity?

International audienceIn many countries, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a period of lockdown that impacted individuals’ lifestyles, in both professional and personal spheres. New problems and challenges arose, as well as opportunities. Numerous studies have examined the negative effects of lockdown measures, but few have attempted to shine light on the potential positive effects that may come out of these measures. We focused on one particular positive outcome that might have emerged from lockdown: creativity. To this end, this paper compared self-reported professional creativity (Pro-C) and everyday creativity (little-c) before and during lockdown, using a questionnaire-based study conducted on a French sample ( N = 1266). We expected participants to be more creative during than prior to lockdown, in both professional and everyday spheres. Regarding Pro-C, we did not see any significant differences between the two comparison points, before and during lockdown. Regarding everyday creativity, we observed a significant increase during lockdown. Furthermore, our results suggest that participants with a lower baseline creativity (before lockdown) benefited more from the situation than those with a higher initial baseline creativity. Our results provide new insights on the impact of lockdown and its positive outcomes. These measures may have inarguably negative consequences on the physical and mental health of many, but their positive impact exists as well

What do medical students and graduated physicians think about infectious disease specialists?

International audienceObjectives: This study evaluated the social representation and stereotypes on infectious disease (ID) specialists among medical students and physicians in France after the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A survey applying the hierarchical evocation model assessed the social representations (SRs) of ID specialists. Results: All in all, 372 answers were analyzed. The positive elements related to the personal and professional qualities of ID specialists (‘intellectual prestige”, “open-mindedness”), in contrast with negative stereotypes related to their perceived daily life and practice characteristics (“hospital-based”, “intense”, “overspecialized”). Variables such as “I would not have chosen (or I won't choose) ID after the national ranking exam” and “I know someone who is an ID specialist” were associated with worse SR scores (p < 0.001 and p = 0.022 respectively). Conclusions: These findings provide insights into the attractiveness of ID as a specialty. Rounds in ID departments may enhance the interest of the specialty as a possible residency choice

Chapitre 29. Innovations individuelles et collectives en situations de crise : cas de l’innovation participative à l’université pendant la crise de Covid-19

International audienc

How do medical students, residents and graduated physicians really perceive radiologists? A cross-national study

International audienceBackground: Radiology has always been an attractive specialty for residents, but its attractiveness has recently decreased in France regarding the median choice rank after at the National Residency Board. Aim: To study Radiologists' perceptions and social representations (SRs) among a group of medical students, residents and graduated physicians in France, to better understand the view of Radiologists to debunk stereotypes. Methods: The nationwide web-based survey was based on valid hierarchical evocation methods. We determined the corpus's central core and SRs’ principal themes with prototypical and correspondence factor analysis (CFA), respectively. Results: Overall, 419 answers were analyzed. Radiologists' SRs were divided into 3 classes: negative stereotypes of Radiologists, negative stereotypes of the Radiologists’ daily practice and Radiologists’ skills. After multivariate analysis, variables that seemed to have a positive influence on Radiologists’ SRs were considering radiology as a potential choice of specialty (p < 0.001) and the existence of practical experience in Radiology (p = 0.008). Women seemed to have a more negative SR of Radiologists than men (p = 0.035). Discussion: This was the largest qualitative study on the subject and the only one among medical students, residents and graduated physicians, allowing a global picture. SRs of Radiologists seemed to be negative, potentially caused by poor knowledge of the Radiologists’ profession. Conclusion: SRs of Radiologists among medical students and graduated physicians appears to be negative. Promoting the specialty among medical students and encouraging their immersion in a Radiology department could help to debunk many stereotypes about the daily life and missions of Radiologists