Can AI Be as Creative as Humans?
Open accessAbstract
Creativity serves as a cornerstone for societal progress and innovation. With the rise of advanced generative AI models capable of tasks once reserved for human creativity, the study of AI's creative potential becomes imperative for its responsible development and application. In this paper, we prove in theory that AI can be as creative as humans under the condition that it can properly fit the data generated by human creators. Therefore, the debate on AI's creativity is reduced into the question of its ability to fit a sufficient amount of data. To arrive at this conclusion, this paper first addresses the complexities in defining creativity by introducing a new concept called Relative Creativity. Rather than attempting to define creativity universally, we shift the focus to whether AI can match the creative abilities of a hypothetical human. The methodological shift leads to a statistically quantifiable assessment of AI's creativity, term Statistical Creativity. This concept, statistically comparing the creative abilities of AI with those of specific human groups, facilitates theoretical exploration of AI's creative potential. Our analysis reveals that by fitting extensive conditional data without marginalizing out the generative conditions, AI can emerge as a hypothetical new creator. The creator possesses the same creative abilities on par with the human creators it was trained on. Building on theoretical findings, we discuss the application in prompt-conditioned autoregressive models, providing a practical means for evaluating creative abilities of generative AI models, such as Large Language Models (LLMs). Additionally, this study provides an actionable training guideline, bridging the theoretical quantification of creativity with practical model training.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Early evidence suggests that outputs from GenAI are perceived as being creative.
“On the other side, there is early evidence suggesting that outputs from GenAI are perceived as being creative [65].”
From Generative AI and Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [65]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 7
- Authors
- Wang, H., Zou, J., Mozer, M., Goyal, A., Lamb, A., Zhang, L., Su, W. J., Deng, Z., Xie, M. Q., Brown, H., & Kawaguchi, K.
- Affiliations
- National University of Singapore (SG)
- Stanford University (US)
- Google DeepMind (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Columbia University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2401.01623
- OpenAlex
- W4390601409
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- computational creativity, generative AI, definition of creativity, large language models, creativity assessment, human-AI comparison
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review