I look through a lot of comments and no one criticzed the way these people did their research. See, from reading the second hand article (and I do realize that they do not say everything and they embellish, etc.), they did not use a real scientific process and they do not understand the meaning of creative. Couldn't the real creative process going on there be coming up with the idea to merge the product with a picture of an image of what you want to portray. Not the actual picking of the image. If this is the case, then they were already putting the creativity into the machine via the creative templates. THus, nothing they said can even be taken seriously. Summary: It takes creativity to come up with a creative template, not to fill in the void of the template. Plus, who cares what the judges say, they might be poor judges of creativity. And I want to see how they did everything (hopefully they did not say what I wanted to know and I just read over it). Did they submit several hundred, to exaggerate, ideas from the computer and the creative ad people only submit a few, so by shear luck the computer came up with better, or just as good, ideas. I mean, can a creative person consistently come up with good ideas, whereas the computer can not, something the article did not talk about (I know they talked about the computer coming up with junk but not about the realtive numbers of how much junk the humans come up with).