PreprintCited by 7Creativity in Education and NeuroscienceArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsTopic Modeling

Can AI Be as Creative as Humans?

Open access
Wang, Haonan, Zou, James, Mozer, Michael, Goyal, Anirudh, Lamb, Alex, Zhang, Linjun, Su, Weijie J, Deng, Zhun +3 more·2024·arXiv

Abstract

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2401.01623

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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)
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
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