Improvising (with) machines? Habits vs Algorithms in Improvisational Creativity

I shall discuss whether, and in which sense, computers and robots are able to improvise. I will suggest that computers and robots can improvise only in a loose sense of the word. However, the interaction between human and computational performers may be improvisational in the proper sense of the term, thereby possibly producing valuable artistic outcomes. I will argue for this view in three steps. (1) Firstly, an outline of some aspects of improvisational creativity will be provided and some misunderstandings about improvisation will be cleared up. Two points are particularlyimportant: the specific way in which improvisation is bound up with unexpectedness and the evaluative dimen-sion of improvisational interactions. (2) Secondly, the notion of habits must be discussed. As I shall argue, habits are different from algorithms. They rule individual behaviour and social interactions. Yet, they do not exclude creativity. (3) Thirdly, I will argue that robots and computers cannot properly improvise, precisely because their performances is not rooted in habits, but mechanically ruled by algorithms. However, improvisational interactions among human and computational performers can be creative (and properly artistic): what computational performers do can offer affordances for unexpected interaction which are characterized by the performative evaluative dimension typical of improvisational interactions in the artistic field.