Imagine you found out that ideas invented by a computer were rated higher by independent experts than ideas created by a group of humans asked to perform. the same task. Would you praise the designer of the 'creative computer' for a great achievement or would you question why human talent -- usually so potent in coping with complex cognitive challenges -- created such poor ideas? Or maybe you would question your view of the notion of creativity. In fact, such a scenario was played out when we used a simple computerized routine to generate ideas and compared them as superior to human ideas when they performed the same task? Creativity is considered the ultimate human activity, a highly complex process, difficult to formalize and to control. Although there is a general agreement regarding the distinctive nature of the creative product(idea, painting, poem, and so on). there is a controversy over the nature of the creative process. Some researchers hold that the creative thinking process is qualitatively different from 'ordinary' day-to-day thinking, and involves a leap that cannot be formulated, analyzed, or reconstructed -- the creative spark. Others adopt a reductionism view that creative products and the outcome of ordinary thinking, only quantitatively different from everyday thinking. Because creative ideas are different from those that normally arise, people often believe that such ideas require conditions dramatically different from the usual. The notion goes that, in order to overcome mental barriers and reach creative ideas, total freedom is necessary -- no directional guidance, constraints, criticism, of thinking within bounded scope. Then ideas can be drawn and contemplated from an infinite space during the creativity process. This view prompted the emergence of various idea-generating methods: brainstorming, synectics, lateral thinking, random stimulation, and so on, all of which consist of withholding judgement and relying on analogies from other members in the group of on randomly selected analogies. This family of methods relies on the assumption that enhancing randomness, breaking rules and paradigms, and generating anarchy of thought increase the probability of creative idea emergence. Do these methods work? A number of researchers indicate that they do not. Ideas suggested by individuals working alone are superior to ideas suggested in brainstorming sessions and the performance of problem solvers instructed to 'break the roles, get out of the square, and change paradigms' was not better than that of individuals who were not given any instruction at all. The failure of these methods to improve creative outcomes has been explained by the unstructured nature of the task. Reitman observed that many problems that lack a structuring framework are ill-defined in that the representations of one or more of the basic components -- the initial state, the operators and constraints, and the goal -- are seriously incomplete, and the search space is exceedingly large. Indeed, many ill-defined problems seem difficult, not because we are swamped by the enormous number of alternative possibilities, but because we have trouble thinking even of one idea worth pursuing. According to this passage, ideas invented by a computer ______.