1. A method of organizing the crowd to generate ideas is described, which uses evolutionary algorithms to increase creativity.
2. An experiment with 540 participants was conducted to compare the combined designs from the system to initial designs and greenfield idea generation systems.
3. The design space of crowdsourced idea generation developed here may be used for a wide range of design problems.
The article provides an overview of an internet-scale idea generation system that uses combination to improve previous designs. The authors provide evidence from an experiment with 540 participants that suggests that their system produces more creative ideas than greenfield idea generation systems. However, there are some potential biases and issues with the article that should be noted.
First, the authors do not provide any information about how they selected their participants or what criteria were used in selecting them, which could lead to bias in the results of their experiment. Additionally, it is unclear if any counterarguments were considered when developing this system or if any risks associated with using this system were taken into account. Furthermore, while the authors discuss potential applications for this system, they do not provide any evidence or examples of how it has been used in practice or its effectiveness in real-world scenarios.
Finally, while the article does present both sides of the argument regarding internet-scale idea generation systems, it does not explore other possible solutions or alternatives that could be used instead of this particular system. This lack of exploration could lead readers to believe that this is the only viable solution for internet-scale idea generation when there may be other options available as well.