Creative scar without generative AI: Individual creativity fails to sustain while homogeneity keeps climbing

IF 12.5 1区社会学 Q1 SOCIAL ISSUES

Technology in Society Pub Date : 2025-09-24 DOI:10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.103087

Yiyong Zhou , Qinghan Liu , Jihao Huang , Guiquan Li

{"title":"Creative scar without generative AI: Individual creativity fails to sustain while homogeneity keeps climbing","authors":"Yiyong Zhou , Qinghan Liu , Jihao Huang , Guiquan Li","doi":"10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.103087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Generative AI such as ChatGPT has been proven to enhance human creativity at the cost of content diversity. Yet, what occurs when individuals, who have developed a dependency on it, find ChatGPT inaccessible? In this study, we examine the impact of both the presence and absence of ChatGPT on sustained creative output and content homogeneity, leveraging two complementary methodologies: a natural experiment (Study 1) and a controlled laboratory experiment with extended follow-ups (Study 2). Study 1 analyzed 419,344 academic papers published before and after ChatGPT-3.5’s release across all subjects categorized by Web of Science (i.e., Physical Sciences, Life Sciences & Biomedicine, Technology, Social Sciences, Arts & Humanities). Study 2, a seven-day laboratory experiment with two follow-up surveys, collected 3593 original ideas and 427 solutions across 18 different creative tasks, with half of the participants using ChatGPT-4. We find that although generative AI helps scholars to publish more academic works in higher-ranked journals and enhances individuals' performance in creative tasks, such creativity drops remarkably upon withdrawal of AI assistance. Strikingly, the induced content homogeneity keeps climbing even months later. We resemble the latter as a creative scar inked in the temporal creativity trajectory. This research identifies a creativity illusion that although generative AI can augment creative performance, users do not truly acquire the ability to create but easily lost it once generative AI is no longer available.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47979,"journal":{"name":"Technology in Society","volume":"84 ","pages":"Article 103087"},"PeriodicalIF":12.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technology in Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X25002775","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Generative AI such as ChatGPT has been proven to enhance human creativity at the cost of content diversity. Yet, what occurs when individuals, who have developed a dependency on it, find ChatGPT inaccessible? In this study, we examine the impact of both the presence and absence of ChatGPT on sustained creative output and content homogeneity, leveraging two complementary methodologies: a natural experiment (Study 1) and a controlled laboratory experiment with extended follow-ups (Study 2). Study 1 analyzed 419,344 academic papers published before and after ChatGPT-3.5’s release across all subjects categorized by Web of Science (i.e., Physical Sciences, Life Sciences & Biomedicine, Technology, Social Sciences, Arts & Humanities). Study 2, a seven-day laboratory experiment with two follow-up surveys, collected 3593 original ideas and 427 solutions across 18 different creative tasks, with half of the participants using ChatGPT-4. We find that although generative AI helps scholars to publish more academic works in higher-ranked journals and enhances individuals' performance in creative tasks, such creativity drops remarkably upon withdrawal of AI assistance. Strikingly, the induced content homogeneity keeps climbing even months later. We resemble the latter as a creative scar inked in the temporal creativity trajectory. This research identifies a creativity illusion that although generative AI can augment creative performance, users do not truly acquire the ability to create but easily lost it once generative AI is no longer available.

查看原文本刊更多论文

没有生成AI的创造性伤痕：当同质性不断攀升时，个体创造力无法维持

ChatGPT等生成式人工智能已被证明以牺牲内容多样性为代价来增强人类的创造力。然而，当开发了对它的依赖的个人发现ChatGPT无法访问时，会发生什么？在本研究中，我们考察了ChatGPT的存在和缺失对持续创意输出和内容同质性的影响，利用了两种互补的方法：自然实验（研究1）和具有扩展随访的受控实验室实验（研究2）。研究1分析了ChatGPT-3.5发布前后发表的419,344篇学术论文，涵盖了Web of Science分类的所有学科（即物理科学、生命科学和生物医学、技术、社会科学、艺术和人文科学）。研究2是一项为期7天的实验室实验，包括两次后续调查，在18个不同的创造性任务中收集了3593个原创想法和427个解决方案，一半的参与者使用ChatGPT-4。我们发现，虽然生成式人工智能帮助学者在更高排名的期刊上发表更多的学术作品，并提高了个人在创造性任务中的表现，但在退出人工智能的帮助后，这种创造力显著下降。引人注目的是，诱导内容同质化甚至在几个月后仍在攀升。我们把后者看作是在时间创造力轨迹上留下的创造性伤疤。这项研究发现了一种创造性错觉，即尽管生成人工智能可以增强创造性表现，但用户并没有真正获得创造能力，一旦生成人工智能不再可用，就很容易失去这种能力。

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

Technology in Society Multiple-

CiteScore

17.90

自引率

14.10%

发文量

316

审稿时长

60 days

期刊介绍： Technology in Society is a global journal dedicated to fostering discourse at the crossroads of technological change and the social, economic, business, and philosophical transformation of our world. The journal aims to provide scholarly contributions that empower decision-makers to thoughtfully and intentionally navigate the decisions shaping this dynamic landscape. A common thread across these fields is the role of technology in society, influencing economic, political, and cultural dynamics. Scholarly work in Technology in Society delves into the social forces shaping technological decisions and the societal choices regarding technology use. This encompasses scholarly and theoretical approaches (history and philosophy of science and technology, technology forecasting, economic growth, and policy, ethics), applied approaches (business innovation, technology management, legal and engineering), and developmental perspectives (technology transfer, technology assessment, and economic development). Detailed information about the journal's aims and scope on specific topics can be found in Technology in Society Briefings, accessible via our Special Issues and Article Collections.