将GPT-3的创造力用于(替代用途)测试

Intech Pub Date : 2022-06-10 DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2206.08932
C. Stevenson, I. Smal, M. Baas, R. Grasman, H. Maas
{"title":"将GPT-3的创造力用于(替代用途)测试","authors":"C. Stevenson, I. Smal, M. Baas, R. Grasman, H. Maas","doi":"10.48550/arXiv.2206.08932","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AI large language models have (co-)produced amazing written works from newspaper articles to novels and poetry. These works meet the standards of the standard definition of creativity: being original and useful, and sometimes even the additional element of surprise. But can a large language model designed to predict the next text fragment provide creative, out-of-the-box, responses that still solve the problem at hand? We put Open AI’s generative natural language model, GPT-3, to the test. Can it provide creative solutions to one of the most commonly used tests in creativity research? We assessed GPT-3’s creativity on Guilford’s Alternative Uses Test (AUT) and compared its performance to previously collected human responses on expert ratings of originality, usefulness and surprise of responses, flexibility of each set of ideas as well as an automated method to measure creativity based on the semantic distance between a response and the AUT object in question. Our results show that -on the whole- humans currently outperform GPT-3 when it comes to creative output. But, we believe it is only a matter of time before GPT-3 catches up on this particular task. We discuss what this work reveals about human and AI creativity, creativity testing and our definition of creativity.","PeriodicalId":13714,"journal":{"name":"Intech","volume":"115 1","pages":"164-168"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"27","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Putting GPT-3's Creativity to the (Alternative Uses) Test\",\"authors\":\"C. Stevenson, I. Smal, M. Baas, R. Grasman, H. Maas\",\"doi\":\"10.48550/arXiv.2206.08932\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AI large language models have (co-)produced amazing written works from newspaper articles to novels and poetry. These works meet the standards of the standard definition of creativity: being original and useful, and sometimes even the additional element of surprise. But can a large language model designed to predict the next text fragment provide creative, out-of-the-box, responses that still solve the problem at hand? We put Open AI’s generative natural language model, GPT-3, to the test. Can it provide creative solutions to one of the most commonly used tests in creativity research? We assessed GPT-3’s creativity on Guilford’s Alternative Uses Test (AUT) and compared its performance to previously collected human responses on expert ratings of originality, usefulness and surprise of responses, flexibility of each set of ideas as well as an automated method to measure creativity based on the semantic distance between a response and the AUT object in question. Our results show that -on the whole- humans currently outperform GPT-3 when it comes to creative output. But, we believe it is only a matter of time before GPT-3 catches up on this particular task. We discuss what this work reveals about human and AI creativity, creativity testing and our definition of creativity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13714,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Intech\",\"volume\":\"115 1\",\"pages\":\"164-168\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"27\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Intech\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.08932\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intech","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.08932","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

摘要

人工智能大型语言模型已经(共同)产生了令人惊叹的书面作品,从报纸文章到小说和诗歌。这些作品符合创造力的标准定义:原创和有用,有时甚至是额外的惊喜元素。但是,一个设计用来预测下一个文本片段的大型语言模型能否提供创造性的、开箱即用的、仍然能解决手头问题的响应?我们对Open AI的生成式自然语言模型GPT-3进行了测试。它能为创造力研究中最常用的测试之一提供创造性的解决方案吗?我们在吉尔福德替代用途测试(AUT)上评估了GPT-3的创造力,并将其表现与之前收集的人类反应进行了比较,这些反应包括独创性、有用性和惊喜性、每组想法的灵活性,以及基于反应与AUT对象之间的语义距离来衡量创造力的自动化方法。我们的研究结果表明,就创造性产出而言,总体而言,人类目前的表现优于GPT-3。但是,我们相信GPT-3赶上这项特殊任务只是时间问题。我们讨论了这项工作揭示了人类和人工智能的创造力,创造力测试和我们对创造力的定义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Putting GPT-3's Creativity to the (Alternative Uses) Test
AI large language models have (co-)produced amazing written works from newspaper articles to novels and poetry. These works meet the standards of the standard definition of creativity: being original and useful, and sometimes even the additional element of surprise. But can a large language model designed to predict the next text fragment provide creative, out-of-the-box, responses that still solve the problem at hand? We put Open AI’s generative natural language model, GPT-3, to the test. Can it provide creative solutions to one of the most commonly used tests in creativity research? We assessed GPT-3’s creativity on Guilford’s Alternative Uses Test (AUT) and compared its performance to previously collected human responses on expert ratings of originality, usefulness and surprise of responses, flexibility of each set of ideas as well as an automated method to measure creativity based on the semantic distance between a response and the AUT object in question. Our results show that -on the whole- humans currently outperform GPT-3 when it comes to creative output. But, we believe it is only a matter of time before GPT-3 catches up on this particular task. We discuss what this work reveals about human and AI creativity, creativity testing and our definition of creativity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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