Human-AI Co-Creativity: Does ChatGPT Make Us More Creative?

IF 2.8 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Kelsey Medeiros, David H. Cropley, Rebecca L. Marrone, Roni Reiter-Palmon
{"title":"Human-AI Co-Creativity: Does ChatGPT Make Us More Creative?","authors":"Kelsey Medeiros,&nbsp;David H. Cropley,&nbsp;Rebecca L. Marrone,&nbsp;Roni Reiter-Palmon","doi":"10.1002/jocb.70022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Much has been made of the apparent capacity for creativity of generative AI. However, as research expands the knowledge base regarding the capabilities and performance of this technology, the prevailing view is shifting away from “AI is creative” and towards a more balanced model of Human-AI co-creativity. Nevertheless, even this paradigm may be impacted by untested assumptions: for example, that generative AI will boost human performance on idea generation tasks. To test that assumption this study primed subjects with lists of words purportedly either from a human or from ChatGPT, and of varying degrees of creativity. Subjects then completed the Divergent Association Task (DAT). The results of this study found no evidence of any difference in divergent thinking resulting from either the source of priming (Human/ChatGPT) or from the level of creativity of the priming (low, typical, and high), <i>with one exception: a low-creativity prime, believed to be from ChatGPT</i>, resulted in lower scores on the DAT compared to other priming conditions. A subsequent regression analysis supported this result, finding only the perceived creativity of the prime to be a weak predictor of DAT scores (in addition to the expected trait of Openness). The consequences of these findings for Human-AI co-creativity are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":39915,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Creative Behavior","volume":"59 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jocb.70022","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Creative Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jocb.70022","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Much has been made of the apparent capacity for creativity of generative AI. However, as research expands the knowledge base regarding the capabilities and performance of this technology, the prevailing view is shifting away from “AI is creative” and towards a more balanced model of Human-AI co-creativity. Nevertheless, even this paradigm may be impacted by untested assumptions: for example, that generative AI will boost human performance on idea generation tasks. To test that assumption this study primed subjects with lists of words purportedly either from a human or from ChatGPT, and of varying degrees of creativity. Subjects then completed the Divergent Association Task (DAT). The results of this study found no evidence of any difference in divergent thinking resulting from either the source of priming (Human/ChatGPT) or from the level of creativity of the priming (low, typical, and high), with one exception: a low-creativity prime, believed to be from ChatGPT, resulted in lower scores on the DAT compared to other priming conditions. A subsequent regression analysis supported this result, finding only the perceived creativity of the prime to be a weak predictor of DAT scores (in addition to the expected trait of Openness). The consequences of these findings for Human-AI co-creativity are discussed.

Abstract Image

人类与人工智能的共同创造:聊天技术会让我们更有创造力吗?
生成式人工智能的创造能力已被广泛关注。然而,随着有关该技术能力和性能的研究不断扩大知识库,主流观点正在从 "人工智能具有创造性 "转向更加平衡的人类-人工智能共同创造模式。然而,即使是这种模式也可能受到未经测试的假设的影响:例如,生成式人工智能会提高人类在创意生成任务中的表现。为了验证这一假设,本研究向受试者提供了据称来自人类或 ChatGPT 的单词列表,这些单词具有不同程度的创造性。受试者随后完成了发散联想任务(DAT)。研究结果表明,无论是引物来源(人类/ChatGPT)还是引物的创造力水平(低、典型和高),都不会导致发散思维的差异,但有一个例外:与其他引物条件相比,被认为来自 ChatGPT 的低创造力引物会导致 DAT 分数较低。随后进行的回归分析支持了这一结果,发现除了预期的开放性特质外,只有素材的感知创造性对 DAT 分数的预测作用较弱。本文讨论了这些发现对人类-人工智能共同创造力的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Creative Behavior
Journal of Creative Behavior Arts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: The Journal of Creative Behavior is our quarterly academic journal citing the most current research in creative thinking. For nearly four decades JCB has been the benchmark scientific periodical in the field. It provides up to date cutting-edge ideas about creativity in education, psychology, business, arts and more.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信