Theoretically there is no reason why creativity cannot be automated. The difference between a computer and a human in this regard is one of complexity. To automate creativity a computer programme or distributed programmes would have to be written which account for billions of years of evolution and development of human organisms in social and cultural settings. This is the determinant source of creativity, which developed rather late in this evolutionary process.

Current computers are simple and have only been developing for a few decades. To programme the billions of years of knowledge and cultural acquisition into advancing computers is a massive project which may itself take billions of years. It may be possible to make shortcuts by incorporating evolved materials such as living cell systems.

Generations of computers up till now have capacities to count quickly, sort, reorganise and store information. As programme libraries grow, functionality is reused and programming languages develop their own cultures, usually oriented to business processes and administration.

For computers to develop libraries of objects for creativity, they require extensive presuppositions to be stored in them and massive processing power to approach the innovative potential of human beings. The cultural criteria for creativity, as well as the logic of rule breaking  in a constructive way, need to be included in the logic of the software, just as they are in the logic of creative human beings and teams of them. “Great men” represent in fact team creativity in a social context. It is not individual.

Not all human beings are creative, in fact most express little of it. Some societies permit more creativity than others and facilitate innovative activity through their structures. Social organisation can hinder creativity or make it impossible, through repression or structural determinants. An innovative society consists of creative people supporting one another. Like current generations of computers, the average family in the suburbs spends its time processing routines. They just “combine what exists” with little or no creative spark and prevent the creativity of others.

It is not a question of  the uncaused origin of the new. It is, that the human at present has far more creative potential than the computer, if unused and undeveloped in most cases. Creativity will remain an exclusive domain of homo sapiens for some time. Bank tellers on the other hand are endangered.