Collective creativity in hybrid societies

Generative AI is changing how cultural artifacts are created and circulated, and with it our understanding of creativity itself. Researchers disagree about whether these tools enrich or impoverish culture, and we argue that much of that disagreement comes from conflating two distinct components of creativity: novelty, a property of single artifacts, and diversity, a property of populations. We argue further that creativity in the context of generative AI is best understood as a property of hybrid collectives, or populations of interacting people and algorithms, rather than of individuals. AI-assisted ideation reliably raises the novelty of individual output while narrowing diversity in the aggregate, but this is not an inevitable consequence of putting machines in the loop. Because humans and models search in complementary ways, mixed groups can outperform and out-diversify groups of either kind alone, and machine-discovered solutions can enter human culture and persist there. What decides the outcome is composition: which agents are present, in what proportion, and how they are connected. The question is no longer whether AI helps or harms creativity, but which mixtures let individual gains accumulate without eroding collective diversity.

Using Large Language Models for Idea Generation in Innovation

This research evaluates the efficacy of large language models (LLMs) in generating new product ideas. To do so, we compare three pools of ideas for new products targeted toward college students and priced at 50 dollars or less. The first pool of ideas was created by university students in a product design course before the availability of LLMs. The second and third pools of ideas were generated by GPT-4 from OpenAI using zero-shot and few-shot prompting, respectively. We evaluated idea quality using standard market research techniques to predict average purchase intent probability. We used text mining to assess idea similarity and human raters to evaluate idea novelty. We find that AI-generated ideas outperform human-generated ideas in terms of average purchase intent, with few-shot prompting yielding slightly higher intent than zero-shot prompting. However, AI-generated ideas are perceived as less novel and exhibit higher pairwise similarity, particularly with few-shot prompting, indicating a less diverse solution landscape. When focusing on the quality of the best ideas rather than the average ideas, we find that AI-generated ideas are seven times more likely to rank among the top 10 percent of ideas, demonstrating a significant advantage over human-generated ideas. We propose that this seven-to-one advantage is a conservative estimate because it does not account for the greater productivity of AI. Our findings suggest that despite some drawbacks, AI creativity presents a substantial benefit in generating high-quality ideas for new product development.

Human diversity fuels collective creativity that large language models cannot simulate or sustain

Diverse human groups produce diverse ideas, the raw material of innovation. Generative AI challenges this engine twice over: everyday AI assistance may homogenize what diverse people create, and AI-simulated diversity may replace the people altogether. We tested both challenges in a preregistered creative metaphor experiment with native (L1) and non-native (L2) English writers, who wrote without AI, with AI-generated ideas (AI ideation), or with AI refining their own ideas (AI refinement). L2 writers contributed more collective diversity than L1 writers, with native-language ideation showing the most diverse pools. AI ideation compressed collective diversity for everyone and left the L2 advantage undetectable, whereas AI refinement preserved both. We then simulated the entire writer pool using personas built from participants' real backgrounds, three model families, native-language prompting, and elevated sampling temperatures. Every simulated pool fell below every human pool, and pushing models further induced diversity only through degenerate text. However, at the individual level, AI ideation raised writers' ratings, pitting private incentives against the collective good, except when L2 writers used their native language, which benefited both. Human diversity remains a valuable creative resource that current AI cannot simulate or sustain; the design of human-AI collaborative workflows determines whether it survives.

Can an AI System Be Creative? A Critical Perspective from Art and Engineering

This paper examines the question of whether artificial intelligence (AI) systems can be creative, approached from the dual perspective of a researcher trained in electrical engineering, pattern recognition, machine learning, and neural networks, who has also spent most of his life engaged in the arts as actor, stage and film director, writer, composer, and visual artist, and in philosophy. Drawing on Margaret Boden's foundational framework, both her three properties of creativity (novelty, surprise, and value) and her three types of creative processes (combinatorial, exploratory, and transformational), the paper argues that AI systems are structurally incapable of creativity in its strongest sense. While they exhibit genuine capability in the domain of combinatorial creativity, they are significantly bounded in exploratory creativity, and fundamentally incapable of transformational creativity. The paper further argues that the most important limitation of current AI systems is not the absence of novelty per se, but the absence of any mechanism for serendipity, accident, or the unexpected, all of which play a central role in the phenomenology of creativity, and the absence of any subject position from which to recognize and welcome such chance events. The paper concludes by proposing a model of human, AI creative collaboration that is both realistic and generative, illustrated by several concrete experiments. The paper is itself a demonstration of the thesis it advances: it was composed through a deliberate human AI collaborative process, which is described in the methodological note that opens it.

The Aura in the Machine: Genealogy and the Status of the Work of Art in the Generative Era

This paper frames Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) not as an unprecedented technological rupture, but as an industrial-scale manifestation of a deeply rooted historical process. Through a genealogy of generative arts, it shows how AI's questions on authorship and creativity have precise historical precedents. A taxonomy of generative systems is proposed across three functional categories (medium, artwork, instrument), the attribution of which is editorial rather than ontological. From individual cognitive atrophy to Model Collapse, the systemic risks of creative automation are identified; environmental enrichment is proposed as an antidote. The role of the artist undergoes a radical metamorphosis: from craftsman of the object to entropic agent, systems designer, explorer, and negentropic curator. This pipeline-based taxonomy rests on a specific premise: the algorithmic system remains medium, instrument, or artwork, while creative agency resides in the humans distributed along it. Algorithmic Repetition is introduced as the aesthetic degeneration of aligned generative systems; the Benjaminian aura does not dissolve in the generative era but condenses upon the productive system. Manifestation is proposed as a third ontological status for generative works, transcending the dichotomy between original and copy. To support the proposed theses, two complementary aspects are examined: the radicalization of distributed authorship; and the reevaluation of older generative models, whose instability constitutes an aesthetic degree of freedom lost by recent ones.

Harnessing Abundance: A Generativity Perspective on Human-GenAI Collaboration

Research on human-GenAI collaboration yields conflicting findings: GenAI can enhance creativity yet reduce collective diversity, with uneven benefits across skill levels. Rather than treating these as contradictions, we argue they reflect a core feature of GenAI: abundance. GenAI makes ideas, drafts, and recombinations plentiful, potentially expanding the hypothesis space and surfacing unanticipated possibilities. However, abundance alone doesn't ensure better outcomes. We propose generative fit as a unifying mechanism explaining when abundance yields productive creativity and when it backfires. Drawing on Generativity Theory, generative fit captures how well a system's generative potential complements a community's generative capacities. We develop a conceptual framework for collaborative human-GenAI settings where participants share goals, depend on one another, and must integrate diverse contributions. By mapping abundance to cognitive, social, and organizational factors of collective creativity, we explain apparent tradeoffs and offer actionable implications for designing workflows that convert abundance into valued creative outcomes.

Individual Gain, Collective Loss: Metacognitive Adaptation in AI-Assisted Creativity

Recent studies reveal a paradox: AI enhances individual creative outputs while reducing collective diversity. Current explanations -- cognitive offloading and over-reliance -- identify symptoms but not mechanisms. We propose selective metacognitive adaptation: routine AI use redistributes rather than uniformly diminishes metacognitive effort. Some capacities are amplified (partner modeling, surface control), while others are systematically under-supported (originality evaluation, reflective integration). This redistribution explains both individual satisfaction and collective convergence. We present a taxonomy of six metacognitive capacities organized by temporal phase, characterize their tendencies under routine AI use, and show how individually rational adaptation produces emergent social costs. The framework generates specific predictions for researchers and design principles for practitioners seeking to preserve both individual creative satisfaction and collective creative diversity.