research-article

Open access

Homogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation

Authors:

Barrett R Anderson,

Jash Hemant Shah,

Max KreminskiAuthors Info & Claims

C&C '24: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition

Pages 413 - 425

https://doi.org/10.1145/3635636.3656204

Published: 23 June 2024 Publication History

All formats PDF

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are now being used in a wide variety of contexts, including as creativity support tools (CSTs) intended to help their users come up with new ideas. But do LLMs actually support user creativity? We hypothesized that the use of an LLM as a CST might make the LLM’s users feel more creative, and even broaden the range of ideas suggested by each individual user, but also homogenize the ideas suggested by different users. We conducted a 36-participant comparative user study and found, in accordance with the homogenization hypothesis, that different users tended to produce less semantically distinct ideas with ChatGPT than with an alternative CST. Additionally, ChatGPT users generated a greater number of more detailed ideas, but felt less responsible for the ideas they generated. We discuss potential implications of these findings for users, designers, and developers of LLM-based CSTs.

References

[1]

Lea Albaugh, Scott E Hudson, Lining Yao, and Laura Devendorf. 2020. Investigating underdetermination through interactive computational handweaving. In Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. 1033–1046.

Digital Library

[2]

Leyla Alipour, Mohsen Faizi, Asghar Mohammad Moradi, and Gholamreza Akrami. 2018. A review of design fixation: Research directions and key factors. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 6, 1-2 (2018), 22–35.

[3]

Alberto Alvarez, Jose Font, and Julian Togelius. 2022. Toward Designer Modeling Through Design Style Clustering. IEEE Transactions on Games 14, 4 (2022), 676–686.

[4]

Kenneth C Arnold, Krysta Chauncey, and Krzysztof Z Gajos. 2020. Predictive text encourages predictable writing. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 128–138.

Digital Library

[5]

Ilhan Aslan, Katharina Weitz, Ruben Schlagowski, Simon Flutura, Susana Garcia Valesco, Marius Pfeil, and Elisabeth André. 2019. Creativity support and multimodal pen-based interaction. In 2019 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction. 135–144.

Digital Library

[6]

Roger E Beaty and Dan R Johnson. 2021. Automating creativity assessment with SemDis: An open platform for computing semantic distance. Behavior Research Methods 53, 2 (2021), 757–780.

[7]

Nina Begus. 2023. Experimental Narratives: A Comparison of Human Crowdsourced Storytelling and AI Storytelling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12902 (2023).

[8]

Advait Bhat, Saaket Agashe, Parth Oberoi, Niharika Mohile, Ravi Jangir, and Anirudha Joshi. 2023. Interacting with Next-Phrase Suggestions: How Suggestion Systems Aid and Influence the Cognitive Processes of Writing. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 436–452.

Digital Library

[9]

Margaret A Boden. 2004. The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. Routledge.

Digital Library

[10]

Rishi Bommasani, Kathleen A Creel, Ananya Kumar, Dan Jurafsky, and Percy S Liang. 2022. Picking on the Same Person: Does Algorithmic Monoculture lead to Outcome Homogenization? In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 35. 3663–3678.

[11]

Herbie Bradley, Andrew Dai, Hannah Teufel, Jenny Zhang, Koen Oostermeijer, Marco Bellagente, Jeff Clune, Kenneth Stanley, Grégory Schott, and Joel Lehman. 2023. Quality-Diversity through AI Feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13032 (2023).

[12]

Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 33. 1877–1901.

[13]

Daniel Buschek, Lukas Mecke, Florian Lehmann, and Hai Dang. 2021. Nine Potential Pitfalls when Designing Human-AI Co-Creative Systems. In Joint Proceedings of the ACM IUI 2021 Workshops.

[14]

Alex Calderwood, Vivian Qiu, Katy Ilonka Gero, and Lydia B Chilton. 2020. How Novelists Use Generative Language Models: An Exploratory User Study. In Workshop on Human-AI Co-Creation with Generative Models (HAI-GEN 2020).

[15]

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Philippe Laban, Divyansh Agarwal, Smaranda Muresan, and Chien-Sheng Wu. 2023. Art or Artifice? Large Language Models and the False Promise of Creativity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14556 (2023).

[16]

Kathy Charmaz. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Sage.

[17]

Erin Cherry and Celine Latulipe. 2014. Quantifying the creativity support of digital tools through the Creativity Support Index. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 21, 4 (2014).

Digital Library

[18]

John Joon Young Chung and Eytan Adar. 2023. PromptPaint: Steering Text-to-Image Generation Through Paint Medium-like Interactions. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology.

Digital Library

[19]

John Joon Young Chung, Shiqing He, and Eytan Adar. 2021. The intersection of users, roles, interactions, and technologies in creativity support tools. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021. 1817–1833.

Digital Library

[20]

John Joon Young Chung, Wooseok Kim, Kang Min Yoo, Hwaran Lee, Eytan Adar, and Minsuk Chang. 2022. TaleBrush: Sketching stories with generative pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

[21]

Nathan Crilly. 2019. Creativity and fixation in the real world: A literature review of case study research. Design Studies 64 (2019), 154–168.

[22]

Nicholas Davis, Chih-Pin Hsiao, Kunwar Yashraj Singh, Brenda Lin, and Brian Magerko. 2017. Creative sense-making: Quantifying interaction dynamics in co-creation. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition. 356–366.

Digital Library

[23]

Nicholas Davis, Alexander Zook, Brian O’Neill, Brandon Headrick, Mark Riedl, Ashton Grosz, and Michael Nitsche. 2013. Creativity support for novice digital filmmaking. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 651–660.

Digital Library

[24]

Alexandra Domrongchai. 2023. Can ChatGPT Make Me a Better Cook?https://www.foodandwine.com/can-chatgpt-make-meal-planning-easier-7368840. Accessed: 2023-11-11.

[25]

Anil R Doshi and Oliver Hauser. 2023. Generative artificial intelligence enhances creativity. Available at SSRN (2023).

[26]

Denis Dumas, Peter Organisciak, and Michael Doherty. 2021. Measuring divergent thinking originality with human raters and text-mining models: A psychometric comparison of methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 15, 4 (2021), 645.

[27]

Denis Dumas, Peter Organisciak, Shannon Maio, and Michael Doherty. 2021. Four text-mining methods for measuring elaboration. The Journal of Creative Behavior 55, 2 (2021), 517–531.

[28]

Brian Eno and Peter Schmidt. 1975. Oblique Strategies, hand produced deck of cards. http://www.rtqe.net/ObliqueStrategies/

[29]

Ziv Epstein, Aaron Hertzmann, and Investigators of Human Creativity. 2023. Art and the science of generative AI. Science 380, 6650 (2023), 1110–1111.

[30]

Umer Farooq, John M Carroll, and Craig H Canoe. 2008. Designing for creativity in computer-supported cooperative work. International Journal of e-Collaboration (IJeC) 4, 4 (2008), 51–75.

[31]

Jonas Frich, Lindsay MacDonald Vermeulen, Christian Remy, Michael Mose Biskjaer, and Peter Dalsgaard. 2019. Mapping the landscape of creativity support tools in HCI. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Digital Library

[32]

William W Gaver, Jacob Beaver, and Steve Benford. 2003. Ambiguity as a resource for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 233–240.

Digital Library

[33]

Katy Ilonka Gero and Lydia B Chilton. 2019. Metaphoria: An algorithmic companion for metaphor creation. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Digital Library

[34]

Agnes Guenther, Boris Eisenbart, and Andy Dong. 2017. Creativity as a way to innovate successfully. In DS 87-8 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17) Vol 8: Human Behaviour in Design, Vancouver, Canada, 21-25.08. 2017. 389–398.

[35]

Matthew Guzdial, Nicholas Liao, Jonathan Chen, Shao-Yu Chen, Shukan Shah, Vishwa Shah, Joshua Reno, Gillian Smith, and Mark O Riedl. 2019. Friend, collaborator, student, manager: How design of an AI-driven game level editor affects creators. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Digital Library

[36]

Jeffrey T Hancock, Mor Naaman, and Karen Levy. 2020. AI-mediated communication: Definition, research agenda, and ethical considerations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 25, 1 (2020), 89–100.

[37]

Sandra G Hart and Lowell E Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in Psychology. Vol. 52. Elsevier, 139–183.

[38]

Tom Hewett, Mary Czerwinski, Michael Terry, Jay Nunamaker, Linda Candy, Bill Kules, and Elisabeth Sylvan. 2005. Creativity support tool evaluation methods and metrics. In Creativity Support Tools: A workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation. 10–24.

[39]

Isa Inuwa-Dutse, Alice Toniolo, Adrian Weller, and Umang Bhatt. 2023. Algorithmic loafing and mitigation strategies in Human-AI teams. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans 1, 2 (2023), 100024.

[40]

Daphne Ippolito, Reno Kriz, Maria Kustikova, João Sedoc, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2019. Comparison of diverse decoding methods from conditional language models. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 3752–3762.

[41]

Maurice Jakesch, Advait Bhat, Daniel Buschek, Lior Zalmanson, and Mor Naaman. 2023. Co-writing with opinionated language models affects users’ views. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Digital Library

[42]

David G Jansson and Steven M Smith. 1991. Design fixation. Design Studies 12, 1 (1991), 3–11.

[43]

David Kirsh. 2011. Creative cognition in choreography. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computational Creativity.

[44]

Jon Kleinberg and Manish Raghavan. 2021. Algorithmic monoculture and social welfare. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 22 (2021), e2018340118.

[45]

Max Kreminski. 2024. The Dearth of the Author in AI-Supported Writing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10289 (2024).

[46]

Max Kreminski and John Joon Young Chung. 2024. Intent Elicitation in Mixed-Initiative Co-Creativity. In Joint Proceedings of the ACM IUI Workshops.

[47]

Max Kreminski, Melanie Dickinson, Joseph Osborn, Adam Summerville, Michael Mateas, and Noah Wardrip-Fruin. 2020. Germinate: A mixed-initiative casual creator for rhetorical games. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, Vol. 16. 102–108.

[48]

Max Kreminski, Melanie Dickinson, Noah Wardrip-Fruin, and Michael Mateas. 2022. Loose Ends: a mixed-initiative creative interface for playful storytelling. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, Vol. 18. 120–128.

Digital Library

[49]

Max Kreminski, Isaac Karth, Michael Mateas, and Noah Wardrip-Fruin. 2022. Evaluating mixed-initiative creative interfaces via expressive range coverage analysis. In IUI Workshops. 34–45.

[50]

Max Kreminski and Chris Martens. 2022. Unmet creativity support needs in computationally supported creative writing. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants (In2Writing 2022). 74–82.

[51]

Max Kreminski and Michael Mateas. 2021. Reflective creators. In International Conference on Computational Creativity. 309–318.

[52]

Max Kreminski and Noah Wardrip-Fruin. 2019. Generative games as storytelling partners. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games.

Digital Library

[53]

Mina Lee, Katy Ilonka Gero, John Joon Young Chung, Simon Buckingham Shum, Vipul Raheja, Hua Shen, Subhashini Venugopalan, Thiemo Wambsganss, David Zhou, Emad A. Alghamdi, Tal August, Avinash Bhat, Madiha Zahrah Choksi, Senjuti Dutta, Jin L.C. Guo, Md Naimul Hoque, Yewon Kim, Simon Knight, Seyed Parsa Neshaei, Antonette Shibani, Disha Shrivastava, Lila Shroff, Agnia Sergeyuk, Jessi Stark, Sarah Sterman, Sitong Wang, Antoine Bosselut, Daniel Buschek, Joseph Chee Chang, Sherol Chen, Max Kreminski, Joonsuk Park, Roy Pea, Eugenia Ha Rim Rho, Zejiang Shen, and Pao Siangliulue. 2024. A Design Space for Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.

Digital Library

[54]

Mina Lee, Percy Liang, and Qian Yang. 2022. CoAuthor: Designing a human-AI collaborative writing dataset for exploring language model capabilities. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Digital Library

[55]

Isabelle Levent and Lila Shroff. 2023. The Model is the Message. In The Second Workshop on Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants.

[56]

Jingyi Li, Eric Rawn, Jacob Ritchie, Jasper Tran O’Leary, and Sean Follmer. 2023. Beyond the Artifact: Power as a Lens for Creativity Support Tools. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology.

Digital Library

[57]

Q Vera Liao and S Shyam Sundar. 2022. Designing for responsible trust in AI systems: A communication perspective. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 1257–1268.

Digital Library

[58]

Roberta M Milgram and Norman A Milgram. 1976. Creative thinking and creative performance in Israeli students.Journal of educational psychology 68, 3 (1976), 255.

[59]

Piotr Mirowski, Kory W Mathewson, Jaylen Pittman, and Richard Evans. 2023. Co-Writing Screenplays and Theatre Scripts with Language Models: Evaluation by Industry Professionals. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Digital Library

[60]

Moran Mizrahi, Guy Kaplan, Dan Malkin, Rotem Dror, Dafna Shahaf, and Gabriel Stanovsky. 2023. State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00595 (2023).

[61]

Ethan Mollick. 2023. On-boarding your AI Intern. https://www.oneusefulthing.org/p/on-boarding-your-ai-intern. Accessed: 2023-11-11.

[62]

Richard D Morey. 2008. Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 4, 2 (2008), 61–64.

[63]

Niklas Muennighoff, Nouamane Tazi, Loic Magne, and Nils Reimers. 2023. MTEB: Massive Text Embedding Benchmark. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2014–2037. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-main.148

[64]

Matthew J Neagley. 2023. Campaign Prep with ChatGPT. https://gnomestew.com/campaign-prep-with-chatgpt/. Accessed: 2023-11-11.

[65]

Arvind Neelakantan, Tao Xu, Raul Puri, Alec Radford, Jesse Michael Han, Jerry Tworek, Qiming Yuan, Nikolas Tezak, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Johannes Heidecke, Pranav Shyam, Boris Power, Tyna Eloundou Nekoul, Girish Sastry, Gretchen Krueger, David Schnurr, Felipe Petroski Such, Kenny Hsu, Madeleine Thompson, Tabarak Khan, Toki Sherbakov, Joanne Jang, Peter Welinder, and Lilian Weng. 2022. Text and Code Embeddings by Contrastive Pre-Training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.10005 (2022).

[66]

Dmitry Nikolaev and Sebastian Padó. 2023. Representation biases in sentence transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13039 (2023).

[67]

OpenAI. 2023. ChatGPT: A Large-Scale Conversational Language Model. https://www.openai.com/research/chatgpt. Accessed: August 3rd, 2023.

[68]

Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 35. 27730–27744.

[69]

Vishakh Padmakumar and He He. 2023. Does Writing with Language Models Reduce Content Diversity?arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05196 (2023).

[70]

Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). 1532–1543. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D14-1162

[71]

A Terry Purcell and John S Gero. 1996. Design and other types of fixation. Design Studies 17, 4 (1996), 363–383.

[72]

Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics. https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084

[73]

Christian Remy, Lindsay MacDonald Vermeulen, Jonas Frich, Michael Mose Biskjaer, and Peter Dalsgaard. 2020. Evaluating creativity support tools in HCI research. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 457–476.

Digital Library

[74]

Melissa Roemmele. 2021. Inspiration through observation: Demonstrating the influence of automatically generated text on creative writing. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC ’21).

[75]

Mark A Runco, Shawn M Okuda, and Becky J Thurston. 1987. The psychometric properties of four systems for scoring divergent thinking tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 5, 2 (1987), 149–156.

[76]

Matt Ruten. 2012. Oblique Strategies App. https://obliquestrategies.ca

[77]

Abigail See, Aneesh Pappu, Rohun Saxena, Akhila Yerukola, and Christopher D Manning. 2019. Do Massively Pretrained Language Models Make Better Storytellers? In Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL). Association for Computational Linguistics, 843–861. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/K19-1079

[78]

Ben Shneiderman. 2007. Creativity support tools: accelerating discovery and innovation. Commun. ACM 50, 12 (2007), 20–32.

Digital Library

[79]

Paul J Silvia, Beate P Winterstein, John T Willse, Christopher M Barona, Joshua T Cram, Karl I Hess, Jenna L Martinez, and Crystal A Richard. 2008. Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2, 2 (2008), 68.

[80]

Dean Keith Simonton. 2010. Creative thought as blind-variation and selective-retention: Combinatorial models of exceptional creativity. Physics of Life Reviews 7, 2 (2010), 156–179.

[81]

Nikhil Singh, Guillermo Bernal, Daria Savchenko, and Elena L Glassman. 2023. Where to hide a stolen elephant: Leaps in creative writing with multimodal machine intelligence. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 30, 5 (2023).

Digital Library

[82]

Sangho Suh, Meng Chen, Bryan Min, Toby Jia-Jun Li, and Haijun Xia. 2023. Structured Generation and Exploration of Design Space with Large Language Models for Human-AI Co-Creation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12953 (2023).

[83]

Yuqian Sun, Xingyu Li, Jun Peng, and Ze Gao. 2023. Inspire Creativity with ORIBA: Transform Artists’ Original Characters into Chatbots through Large Language Model. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2023 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing & the 2023 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computing(UbiComp/ISWC ’23 Adjunct). 78–82. https://doi.org/10.1145/3594739.3610695

Digital Library

[84]

S Shyam Sundar and Jinyoung Kim. 2019. Machine heuristic: When we trust computers more than humans with our personal information. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Digital Library

[85]

E Paul Torrance. 1966. Torrance tests of creative thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement (1966).

[86]

Qian Wan, Siying Hu, Yu Zhang, Piaohong Wang, Bo Wen, and Zhicong Lu. 2023. “It Felt Like Having a Second Mind”’: Investigating Human-AI Co-creativity in Prewriting with Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10811 (2023).

[87]

Qian Wan and Zhicong Lu. 2023. GANCollage: A GAN-Driven Digital Mood Board to Facilitate Ideation in Creativity Support. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 136–146.

Digital Library

[88]

Chuan Yan, John Joon Young Chung, Yoon Kiheon, Yotam Gingold, Eytan Adar, and Sungsoo Ray Hong. 2022. FlatMagic: Improving flat colorization through AI-driven design for digital comic professionals. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Digital Library

[89]

Lixiu Yu, Aniket Kittur, and Robert E Kraut. 2014. Distributed analogical idea generation: inventing with crowds. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1245–1254.

Digital Library

[90]

JD Zamfirescu-Pereira, Richmond Y Wong, Bjoern Hartmann, and Qian Yang. 2023. Why Johnny can’t prompt: how non-AI experts try (and fail) to design LLM prompts. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Digital Library

Cited By

Woo DGuo KSalas-Pilco S(2024)Writing creative stories with AI: learning designs for secondary school studentsInnovation in Language Learning and Teaching10.1080/17501229.2024.2384884(1-13)Online publication date: Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2024.2384884
Brandtzaeg PSkjuve MFølstad A(2024)Understanding model power in social AIAI & SOCIETY10.1007/s00146-024-02053-4Online publication date: 14-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02053-4

Index Terms

Homogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation

Recommendations

Art or Artifice? Large Language Models and the False Promise of Creativity
CHI '24: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Researchers have argued that large language models (LLMs) exhibit high-quality writing capabilities from blogs to stories. However, evaluating objectively the creativity of a piece of writing is challenging. Inspired by the Torrance Test of Creative ...
Evaluating Creativity Support Tools via Homogenization Analysis
CHI EA '24: Extended Abstracts of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
The evaluation of creativity support tools (CSTs)—software systems intended to support human creativity—remains an open problem, in part because creativity is fundamentally difficult to define and in part because different CSTs target a wide variety of ...
Creative Computing for Bespoke Ideation
COMPSAC '15: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 39th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference - Volume 01

Today, idea generation is an extremely important activity for both academic researchers and industrial groups. A considerable number of applications and research studies have been made in the past years in order to increase the effectiveness of idea ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

C&C '24: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition

June 2024

718 pages

ISBN:9798400704857

DOI:10.1145/3635636

Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 23 June 2024

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

C&C '24

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

C&C '24: Creativity and Cognition

June 23 - 26, 2024

IL, Chicago, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 108 of 371 submissions, 29%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

1
Total Citations
View Citations
480
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)480
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)223

Reflects downloads up to 21 Aug 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Woo DGuo KSalas-Pilco S(2024)Writing creative stories with AI: learning designs for secondary school studentsInnovation in Language Learning and Teaching10.1080/17501229.2024.2384884(1-13)Online publication date: Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2024.2384884
Brandtzaeg PSkjuve MFølstad A(2024)Understanding model power in social AIAI & SOCIETY10.1007/s00146-024-02053-4Online publication date: 14-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02053-4

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents