Examining the Idea Density and Semantic Distance of Responses Given by AI to Tests of Divergent Thinking

IF 3 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Mark A. Runco, Burak Turkman, Selcuk Acar, Ahmed M. Abdulla Alabbasi
{"title":"Examining the Idea Density and Semantic Distance of Responses Given by AI to Tests of Divergent Thinking","authors":"Mark A. Runco,&nbsp;Burak Turkman,&nbsp;Selcuk Acar,&nbsp;Ahmed M. Abdulla Alabbasi","doi":"10.1002/jocb.1528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Research suggests that generative AI (GAI) responds to divergent thinking (DT) prompts with multiple ideas, some of which seem to be original. The present investigation administered 55 DT tasks to three GAI services (Bard, GPT 3.5, and GPT 4.0). Instead of examining individual responses, an Idea Density algorithm was used to assess the output. This algorithm quantifies the ideas within responses, controlling for the number of words. A subset of the DT tests administered to the GAI were also scored for Semantic Distance, which estimates originality. Results indicated that the three GAI models differed in the Idea Density of the output. There were also significant differences between Realistic and Nonrealistic DT tasks. As has been the case in human samples, directions given when the GAI received the prompts also had a significant impact, with more Idea Density following directions that explicitly prompted original responses. Adjusted scores removed all verbiage in the output, which did not actually address the questions conveyed by the prompts. These corrected scores shared approximately 50% of the variance with the uncorrected “raw” responses, implying that the typical output of GAI is not always relevant. This was interpreted in the context of the standard definition of creativity, which emphasizes effectiveness, as well as originality.</p>","PeriodicalId":39915,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Creative Behavior","volume":"59 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jocb.1528","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Creative Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jocb.1528","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

Research suggests that generative AI (GAI) responds to divergent thinking (DT) prompts with multiple ideas, some of which seem to be original. The present investigation administered 55 DT tasks to three GAI services (Bard, GPT 3.5, and GPT 4.0). Instead of examining individual responses, an Idea Density algorithm was used to assess the output. This algorithm quantifies the ideas within responses, controlling for the number of words. A subset of the DT tests administered to the GAI were also scored for Semantic Distance, which estimates originality. Results indicated that the three GAI models differed in the Idea Density of the output. There were also significant differences between Realistic and Nonrealistic DT tasks. As has been the case in human samples, directions given when the GAI received the prompts also had a significant impact, with more Idea Density following directions that explicitly prompted original responses. Adjusted scores removed all verbiage in the output, which did not actually address the questions conveyed by the prompts. These corrected scores shared approximately 50% of the variance with the uncorrected “raw” responses, implying that the typical output of GAI is not always relevant. This was interpreted in the context of the standard definition of creativity, which emphasizes effectiveness, as well as originality.

Abstract Image

人工智能对发散性思维测试反应的思想密度和语义距离检验
研究表明,生成式人工智能(GAI)对发散性思维(DT)的提示做出反应,提出了多种想法,其中一些似乎是原创的。本研究将55个DT任务分配给三个GAI服务(Bard、GPT 3.5和GPT 4.0)。不是检查个人的回答,而是使用一个想法密度算法来评估输出。这个算法量化了回答中的想法,控制了单词的数量。对GAI进行的DT测试的一个子集也对语义距离进行了评分,这估计了原创性。结果表明,三种GAI模型在输出思想密度上存在差异。现实和非现实DT任务之间也存在显著差异。与人类样本的情况一样,GAI收到提示时给出的指示也有重大影响,更多的想法密度遵循明确提示原始反应的指示。调整后的分数删除了输出中的所有废话,这些废话实际上并没有解决提示所传达的问题。这些修正后的分数与未修正的“原始”回答的差异约为50%,这意味着GAI的典型输出并不总是相关的。这是在强调有效性和原创性的创造力标准定义的背景下解释的。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信