It has to be more than simply making something new and unique. That's a definition, but it's not how we usually use the word. Typically, when we say someone is creative, there's some sort of value judgment involved.
Can a chimp or computer be creative and create a masterpiece? or is that something only a human can do?
But it's the computer generating the poetry. I can't see the poems till the computer creates them.
Maybe creativity is pretty trivial?
Creativity is a display of ones ability to be flexible with strategies.
Creativity was fundamental in the evolutionary shift from Domain Specific strategies (single use strategies) to Domain General strategies (strategies with more than one use, or flexible strategies). Our ability to display this prowess would have been a vital aspect of making us a valuable addition to the rest of the tribe.
We still value it today.
Creativity is the ability to solve problems in novel ways. e.g. a creative cook can be presented with a few ingredients and produce one of many different dishes that those ingredients are typically used in, or they can adapt other recipes to make something kinda new, or they can make something completely unheard of.
Typically, when we say someone is creative, there's some sort of value judgment involved.
I'm not sure what you mean by this? How is lead piping for plumbing any less creative than copper piping? The judgement here being that lead piping will slowly poison you and is therefore an objectively worse solution.
Can a chimp be creative and create a masterpiece?
Chimps can almost certainly be creative. Maybe not on the same level as humans, but in their own way their brains are quite capable of solving problems in novel ways. A masterpiece? I don't think it's fair to judge a chimp's work by human standards.
Can a computer be creative and create a masterpiece?
In theory, yes. In practice, it's not so great. In an AI course at uni, I heard a story about a neural net being trained to identify tanks... it worked perfectly on the training pictures so they decided to try a bunch more pictures. Turns out it was identifying the russian tanks as russian because they were pictured on snow and the US tanks as US tanks because they were on sand, grass, or dirt. It's a novel solution to the problem of identifying a tank: "If the picture has alot of white in it, it's russian", but it's not what the trainers had in mind.
Computers can create novelties. New things never seen before.
When people say "That's creative," they are also saying that it's good in some way. Hence the value judgment.
The reason we would never call anything a chimp created as a "masterpiece" is that we'd never think of a chimp as an actual artist. For the same reason, no matter how interesting or fascinating a piece of computer art might be, it can't be a masterpiece because we'd never think of a computer (or chimp) as a "master."
As a total sidelight, current thinking is that the Roman empire did NOT collapse due to lead pipes and it probably wasn't a contributing factor.
Unlike our present day plumbing, Roman plumbing was continuous flow. An aqueduct brought water to the city, and it flowed through the mains, the pipes, etc constantly. So the water didn't sit for hours in the pipes, dissolving lead, it was in the lead piping and gone again within minutes.
Creativity is blending in with the rank and file of frightening robotic religious rapscallions in a clandestine mission to ascertain intelligence and gather anthropological data comparing human monkeys of modernity with sustenance level primitives at the outskirts of civilization.
Best answer ever.
In a utilitarian sense, I suppose creativity could exist in non-human animals. A bower bird certainly "creates" an elaborate nest to attract a female, for example. But my definition is more restrictive and I regard it as something only a human mind can produce. I believe that the actions of even our closest relatives, the chimps, can be explained as reactions to external stimuli, rather than imaginative inner contemplation. But I could be wrong.
Clearly some traits are only attributable to human beings. Imagine a Newfoundland (dog) lives on a beach, and it regularly saves humans who get in trouble with the undertow. You might say that the dog has, in a way, dedicated itself to saving people. A person who did that could be described as "heroic" and perhaps even "humanitarian" without stretching the language beyond recognition.But wouldn't it be a stretch or a metaphorical usage at best to call that Newfoundland heroic or humanitarian? I think so. Even more so if it's a robot dedicated to saving drowning swimmers.
Back to birds for a sec. Every nest created by a bird is a unique creation, so are all nest-building birds creative? Bower birds may make nests that impress humans, but a sparrow's or swift's nest may be impressive to its partner as well.
Dog does art.