Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Can AI Be as Creative as Humans?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2401.01623 v4 pith:DM364VVC submitted 2024-01-03 cs.AI cs.CL

classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords creativitycreativehumanabilitiesmodelsdatagenerativetheoretical
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Creativity serves as a cornerstone for societal progress and innovation. With the rise of advanced generative AI models capable of tasks once reserved for human creativity, the study of AI's creative potential becomes imperative for its responsible development and application. In this paper, we prove in theory that AI can be as creative as humans under the condition that it can properly fit the data generated by human creators. Therefore, the debate on AI's creativity is reduced into the question of its ability to fit a sufficient amount of data. To arrive at this conclusion, this paper first addresses the complexities in defining creativity by introducing a new concept called Relative Creativity. Rather than attempting to define creativity universally, we shift the focus to whether AI can match the creative abilities of a hypothetical human. The methodological shift leads to a statistically quantifiable assessment of AI's creativity, term Statistical Creativity. This concept, statistically comparing the creative abilities of AI with those of specific human groups, facilitates theoretical exploration of AI's creative potential. Our analysis reveals that by fitting extensive conditional data without marginalizing out the generative conditions, AI can emerge as a hypothetical new creator. The creator possesses the same creative abilities on par with the human creators it was trained on. Building on theoretical findings, we discuss the application in prompt-conditioned autoregressive models, providing a practical means for evaluating creative abilities of generative AI models, such as Large Language Models (LLMs). Additionally, this study provides an actionable training guideline, bridging the theoretical quantification of creativity with practical model training.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Using Large Language Models for Idea Generation in Innovation

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GPT-4-generated product ideas had higher average purchase intent than student ideas and made up 35 of the top 40 ideas, while being rated less novel and more similar to each other.

  2. HypoSpace: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Set-Valued Hypothesis Generation under Underdetermination and Sublinear Coverage Bounds

    cs.CL 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A benchmark with exactly enumerated valid hypothesis sets shows LLMs maintain high validity but lose uniqueness and coverage as the admissible solution space grows.

  3. Evaluating the Unseen Capabilities: How Many Theorems Do LLMs Know?

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    KnowSum extrapolates from observed LLM outputs to estimate unseen knowledge, and counting that hidden knowledge shifts model rankings in several evaluation tasks.

  4. Generative AI and Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A meta-analysis of 28 studies finds no average creativity gap between GenAI and humans, a small boost when humans collaborate with GenAI, and a large drop in idea diversity in those collaborations.

  5. A Systematic Review of Human-AI Co-Creativity

    cs.HC 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A PRISMA-style review of 62 co-creative systems identifies six design dimensions and 24 design considerations, reporting that user control and adaptive proactivity are associated with better collaboration outcomes.

Pith tools