Train people to think.

"The best way to train people to be creative is through a system of education that allows them to learn about creativity, and teaches them how to express their ideas creatively.To do this, we need a system of teaching that is open-ended and non-prescriptive. We should not tell students what they are allowed or not allowed to think about; instead we should allow the student to develop his own understanding of the subject matter at hand. A good teacher will guide his/her students in becoming more creative by providing examples for them to work with, but ultimately it is up the student's ability and willingness if he/she wants to become more creative.""If you want your students' level of creativity improved in an educational setting then any kind of example can help when used in conjunction with learning theories such as those derived from behaviorism: "learning style" (the idea that different types of learners learn differently), "situationism", "constructivism", etc. Any type of example can be used for teaching purposes – nothing special needs to happen.""The focus on creativity has been largely misdirected because it does not address the real issue: Is there a problem in society where people have less freedom? Are there laws against free expression? Is there censorship? Or even worse – suppression?" You see humans collectively have developed many systems over millennia - some better than others – but no method really works consistently across many generations unless you add some external force like fear or greed which causes human beings themselves actually train each other using pain & pleasure applied by others over time . When combined with motivation provided by rewards & punishments applied externally upon individuals, these two forces provide sufficient motivation for most people who were given access enough resources away from home during childhood development stage (this is present day mostly) so they can reach adulthood having learned many skills required towards further life strategies needed both mentally & physically depending on where their lives take them after leaving home.. Now coming back onto our topic..to make sure everyone becomes successful enough at whatever task they undertake throughout life, we give each person lots freedom along with lots opportunities available during childhood development stages (at least here today). This approach allows people who succeed at school become successful adults while still maintaining relatively similar levels across every single generation since most cultures around world tend toward similarities rather than differences between individual members within same population group thanks mainly due lack lack excessive cultural diversity interfering too much at times with basic survival instincts common among all humans everywhere around world... Also allowing kids plenty chance at success gives them hope early enough so there won't be as much frustration involved when things don't work out according results expected beforehand....

There is a philosophical problem with creativity training, which is that it isn't clear what exactly the word 'creativity' means. There are some well defined types of creativity, such as musical or artistic creativity, but then there are other kinds of creative thought too.To understand this more clearly let us start by defining what we mean by 'creativity'. We can think of three different ways in which people use the term. The first way is to describe something as being creative if it has a new and interesting idea in an area that has already been explored extensively (like mathematics or physics). This is not really a definition though since nobody could possibly know whether every possible idea had already been explored; perhaps there might be discoveries waiting to be made about some area that nobody has even considered yet - like discovering a new dimension beyond four dimensions. Similarly it would be hard for anyone to decide whether they have found all possible ideas within an area (for example music), since most areas will never reach their conclusive end because there will always be unexplored possibilities left open for further exploration/creation/innovation.The second way we use the term 'creative' involves describing something as being creative if it uses existing concepts in an unusual way - like using language creatively so that one can say things differently than was previously said before - or having new insights into old problems (and thus solving them). This kind of thinking requires both originality and insight, but unlike above does not require any particular level of novelty . It seems reasonable to assume though that at least some people who do this sort of thing need originality and insight anyway; otherwise they wouldn't have done anything particularly innovative at all! So maybe this type of thinking should also count as being creative? After all, if someone discovered how to solve Fermat's Last Theorem without doing any actual mathematics or studying maths beforehand surely they were using ideas from both fields in an unusual fashion?The third way we use the term 'creative' involves describing something as being creative when one person comes up with an idea based on seeing another person perform certain actions , which he then independently copies himself afterwards (or tries to copy). I'm not sure why this case should count as involving creativity rather than just imitation; especially considering how much copying happens between humans anyway almost every single day! Perhaps its easier for human children who haven't learnt enough social skills yet , but once you've learned these skills copying shouldn't take very long at all. In fact its actually quite difficult for adults who don't practice copying often enough :-P But regardless lets assume our hypothetical AI doesn't need social skills ; after all she may have previous knowledge from working with similar machines before...One other point worth making here: It's important when evaluating whether somebody else is truly innovative / creative / intelligent etc., that you consider ALL relevant factors involved . Including factors unique only available through experience-based learning , such as understanding abstract concepts . For instance many people believe Einstein was highly intelligent because his work extended our understanding far beyond previous thinkers in physics...but did Einstein's intelligence include understanding things like quantum mechanics ? How much did he understand about general relativity ? Did he ever realise how many physicists struggled trying explain his theories correctly? Or did he simply get lucky early on when those gaps still hadn't been filled yet ? If Einstein had understood nothing about either field then would his work have still counted towards him being highly intelligent ? Of course I am aware many people feel strongly over these questions...but my main point here is that you must consider ALL relevant factors involved when judging someone's intelligence . Otherwise your judgement becomes biased due to limited access information ! And remember: Anybody can invent anything given sufficient time and resources :-)