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.

Are LLMs becoming similarly creative? Evidence from three years of models

Many benchmarks track Large Language Model (LLM) performance on tasks with verifiable answers, but less is known about how LLM performance is evolving on open-ended tasks, where creativity, originality and diversity may matter as much as quality. As LLMs increasingly support human ideation and creative work, understanding trends in LLM performance on open-ended tasks is critical. This paper presents a preliminary analysis of LLM creative outputs spanning three years of model releases, examining model responses to Infinity-Chat100, a real-world collection of open-ended user queries, and the Alternate Uses Task, an established psychometric creativity assessment. Using sentence-embedding similarity, we examine trends in LLM responses to these prompts. Our findings show a statistically significant decrease in model output diversity over time, suggesting that LLM outputs may be converging in creative substance across models. If this trend persists, LLM-driven homogenization may progressively diminish human agency in human-AI co-creative work, demanding careful consideration of LLMs' role in the human creative process.

Assessing LLMs' mathematical abilities requires understanding the various mechanisms of mathematical creativity

How should we assess whether large language models can perform mathematical invention? I argue that this question is currently underspecified: mathematical creativity is not one capacity but several mechanistically distinct modes of meaning-making - reflexive introspection on mathematical practice, analogical import from the sciences, problem-driven construction, and the bridging of distant domains - together with a further, cross-cutting distinction between meaning pursued because a pattern was observed and meaning pursued because it is strategically wanted, a distinction I develop through the case of conjecture-formation. These mechanisms are likely non-substitutable, so that competence in one does not transfer to the others. Grounding each in a historical case study and in an architecture-level account of current transformer-based systems, I suggest that today's models concentrate their competence in modes shaped by recombination and search over existing building blocks; if that description holds, the remaining modes are out of reach in principle, not just slower - though whether it holds is itself the open, empirical part. Because proof is getting cheaper as AI improves at generating it - a shift the field's own leading voices are now diagnosing - mathematical value is migrating toward the modes current systems cannot yet perform, and evaluations of AI mathematical ability should be organized around this taxonomy rather than around aggregate benchmarks that conflate it.

ALPS: Measuring Valid Creativity in Large Language Models with Mathematical Construction

Large language models produce outputs presented as discoveries - new proofs, conjectures, or molecules. Whether such an output that appears creative is truly original and effective is hard to establish: open-ended outputs require subjective judgment, the output may replicate something seen in training, or the task may be too simple to need creativity. We present ALPS (Austin-Law Proof-Synthesis), a benchmark that designs a task to measure valid creativity: producing a solution that is original and can be proven correct. Each instance is a single equational law, certified to require either the construction of an infinite mathematical structure satisfying the law, or a proof that no such structure exists. Submissions are verified by automated proof checking with no human involvement, and a public generator produces new instances without limit, so LLMs are never evaluated on problems they may have seen. A portfolio of eight configurations of leading automated provers resolves 2.2% of the 4,141-law evaluation pool, and a twentyfold budget increase adds 0.6%: the obstacle is not compute, but the absence of any method that produces the tailored structure each law requires. Under a fixed protocol, the strongest reasoning model we test succeeds in 14% of instances on the proof side, but none on the construction side. The remaining 97.2% of the pool is unresolved at every configuration and budget we test. We release ALPS in full: the corpus, the generator, and the automated judge.

CreativeInstruct: Scalably Teaching LLMs to Balance Quality, Creativity, and Diversity

While post-training improves the capabilities of large language models (LLMs), it generally lowers their output diversity and creativity, negatively impacting tasks that explicitly require creativity (e.g., story generation) as well as those that require it implicitly, e.g., reinforcement learning (RL). We instead propose CreativeInstruct, a scalable instruction-tuning method that teaches LLMs to balance creative, base-model-like generations with the quality of post-trained models, by learning to inject special [StartCreativity] spans that bias generation toward creativity. Furthermore, we introduce a structural diversity metric based on graph edit distance, which captures narrative level variation missed by purely lexical and semantic metrics. On narrative generation, CreativeInstruct matches or exceeds the diversity of both multi-model baselines and distilled variants of their outputs, without sacrificing quality or requiring multiple models at inference time. These results are mirrored in our human evaluation, where we find that annotators rate CreativeInstruct generations as more creative than the post-trained LLMs' generations in 70.3% of cases. We also show the benefits of creative models as a substrate for RL: GRPO applied to a CreativeInstruct checkpoint improves by ~4% on AMC and ~5% points on MATH over the same training applied to the post-trained checkpoint.

Recipes for Creativity: Iterative Generation and Evaluation in Large Language Models

Generative models are often evaluated through singular artifacts, whereas human creativity typically emerges through iterative generation, appraisal, and refinement. This pilot study examines whether iterative search improves LLM creativity by adapting FunSearch to recipe generation for the 2024 Pillsbury Bake-Off and evaluating outputs against human benchmarks using TTCT-based LLM evaluation. Across two experiments, we test iteration count, generator temperature, and in-loop selection-scorer model size. Results show that iterative generation-selection can produce recipes with creativity scores comparable to human benchmarks, but additional iterations alone do not improve creativity. The in-loop evaluator matters most: a smaller selection scorer yields significantly higher scores across most TTCT dimensions, while temperature has limited effects except for originality. These findings suggest that evaluator design is a first-order design variable in subjective creative search.

On the Diversity of Analogy Making in Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable potential for analogy making, a core cognitive capability that drives novelty and creativity. While prior research has extensively investigated the applications and underlying mechanisms of LLM-based analogy making, its output diversity remains largely unexplored, despite being essential for broadening cross-domain connections and fostering scientific innovation. In this work, we present a comprehensive evaluation of analogy diversity across ten state-of-the-art open- and closed-source LLMs. Our findings highlight a concerning issue of domain homogeneity, a prevalent tendency for LLMs to generate analogies from a narrow set of target domains, limiting both inter-query and intra-model diversity. Furthermore, our analysis reveals a fundamental trade-off in existing LLM diversity-enhancement methods: increasing output diversity often comes at the expense of output quality. Finally, our causal analysis of LLM information flow reveals substantial differences in the model-sensitive regions governing analogy diversity across LLMs, suggesting a potential mechanism for the observed diversity-quality trade-off. To our knowledge, this is among the first studies to systematically investigate output diversity in LLM-based analogy making.

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.

Reasoning or Memorization: Can LLMs Understand and Generate Chinese Xiehouyu Riddles?

In this paper, we push the boundary of LLM reasoning by testing them in a Chinese language game, xiehouyu, with novel xiehouyu created by linguists that had not existed before to avoid data contamination. We use multiple-choice questions (MCQ), free-form explanation generation, and new xiehouyu creation to evaluate LLMs' ability to understand and create xiehouyu. In MCQ, we use the delta of accuracy ($Δ_{acc}$) between existing but low-frequency xiehouyu and novel ones as an index for memorization. $Δ_{acc}$ for native speakers is very low, suggesting similar processing mechanisms. However, we found that frontier Chinese models have on average a $Δ_{acc}$ of 23.6\%, while English-centric models tested have a mean $Δ_{acc}$ of 5.1\%, suggesting that frontier Chinese models are likely trained with much larger Chinese data, thus memorizing more low-frequency xiehouyu. For novel xiehouyu, Gemini 3.1 Pro demonstrated remarkable ability with acc 92.6, which is 24\% higher than human accuracy. In xiehouyu creation, those created by LLMs receive much worse ratings than those by humans. These results suggest that claims about the reasoning abilities of LLMs may need careful re-examination considering the data contamination issue, and that LLMs' creativity in language-related tasks may still be behind human experts, at least in Chinese xiehouyu.

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.

CreativityNeuro: Steering Language Model Weights to Improve Divergent Thinking and Reduce Mode Collapse

Divergent thinking is a crucial aspect of creativity, yet large language models (LLMs) tend to consistently generate similar responses to open-ended questions, in what has been termed the artificial hivemind effect. Here, we introduce CreativityNeuro, a data-free method for enhancing divergent thinking in LLMs via contrastive weight steering. We evaluate our method across multiple creativity assessments and report several main findings. On the Divergent Association Task (DAT), a vocabulary-space creativity test, CreativityNeuro improves performance by up to 14 human percentile points. Next, in a large-scale human evaluation (N=720) on the Alternative Uses Test (AUT) and the Task Task, CreativityNeuro achieves significant improvements in originality, surprise, and creativity, transferring to longer-form and more open-ended tasks. Importantly, we find that across all three tasks, CreativityNeuro demonstrably reduces measures of mode collapse. Moreover, activation steering achieves comparable performance to CreativityNeuro on the DAT, but it does not transfer to the AUT and Task Task, demonstrating the effectiveness of weight-space steering in generalizing to unseen tasks. In conclusion, CreativityNeuro improves divergent thinking and reduces mode collapse without requiring behavioral data, re-training, or gradient-based fine-tuning, providing a straightforward way to enhance LLM performance in creative domains.

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.

Do Large Language Models Always Tell The Same Stories?

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled the generation of high-quality prose, yet whether these models are capable of generating diverse or creative artifacts remains a contested question. In this work, we investigate the diversity of LLM-generated stories through the framework of narrative similarity. Using a contrastive framework and a dataset of human-written stories and prompts from r/WritingPrompts, we collect narrative similarity judgments across 10 representative LLMs, utilizing both human evaluations and three different automatic annotation methods. Our findings reveal a clear trend: LLM-generated narratives are consistently more similar to each other than human-written stories are. We demonstrate that frontier models in particular converge on a "mean" generic narrative that approximates individual human stories but lacks the collective diversity of human authors. Finally, we show that common mitigation strategies, including negative prompting and temperature scaling, fail to meaningfully address this homogeneity.

Creative Integration: A Decidable Criterion of Creativity

"Integrative" solutions are widely praised but rarely defined: we lack an operational way to tell a genuine integration -- one that makes the world cheaper to describe -- from a tidy re-description. Building on the lineage that treats creativity and intelligence as compression, we give such a criterion for creative integration (CI): the resolution of a real conflict between A and B is CI if and only if, under a fixed description language, the description length strictly shrinks (C = L_pre/L_post > 1), with the reduction located in the conflict itself. We make the judgment decidable through four binary, conjunctive gates, and we fix its extension through a taxonomy of pseudo-integration that names and rejects the look-alikes. We back the criterion with a curated, multi-domain corpus and -- crucially -- validate it not by human inter-rater agreement but by four falsifiable tests it could fail: an independent computational check, discrimination against hard negatives, out-of-sample prediction, and description-language robustness; all pass with margin. The contribution is not "creativity is compression" but its decidability, discrimination, and corpus: on this account, what makes a move genuinely creative -- rather than merely novel -- is that it compresses a conflict, with novelty and value as downstream symptoms; whether all creativity is so constituted we state as an explicit conjecture. We claim only the sign of C-1; we judge, not generate. The result is a citable primitive for a broader program.

GENIE: A Fine-Grained Measure for Novelty

Large Language Models have consistently demonstrated a lack of creativity and diversity across tasks. Prior work has focused on addressing whether models are capable of generating creative outputs. Here, we aim to consider novelty and investigate what makes model-generated content novel or not novel in a task-specific manner. We propose a fine-grained evaluation metric GENIE to measure the novelty of responses along task-specific features with respect to a population of responses. We show that unlike GENIE, holistic metrics struggle to capture the high-dimensionality of novelty and do not provide insight on which properties they target. Finally, we use GENIE to measure the effectiveness of mitigation methods that address creativity to better understand where these methods can improve novelty.

Introducing multiplex semantic networks as multifaceted representations of creative associative knowledge across multilingual samples

Creativity is a complex cognitive ability that relies on knowledge organisation and retrieval from semantic memory. Yet most research uses a single task to measure it, capturing only a fraction of this complexity. This study investigates multiplex networks - layered semantic networks obtained from six cognitive tasks - as a more comprehensive approach to modelling the associative knowledge underlying creativity. We collected data from N=518 individuals from four countries (Austria, USA, Singapore, Italy). From their responses to verbal fluency, sentence-chain, free association, and narrative writing tasks, we constructed semantic networks and assembled them in a multiplex structure. AI persona-based responses provided a comparison baseline. Structural reducibility analyses showed that different task layers captured distinct, non-redundant information about semantic organisation, supporting the use of multiple tasks over any single one. The networks from high- and low-creative groups remained structurally distinct, while AI-generated networks showed near-identical structures regardless of creativity group. Finally, we used 12 features (network measures, emotional scores, and spreading activation simulations) in a machine learning model using ridge regression to predict individual creativity scores. The combination of structurally similar layers, as identified in the previous stage, improved a proof-of-concept prediction accuracy by 50%. Structural measures showed the highest feature importance, with spreading activation dynamics providing additional predictive power. Together, these findings indicate that multiplex semantic networks capture a richer, cross-cultural picture of associative knowledge underlying creativity. We also release our diverse dataset and code to foster diverse computational approaches within the creativity community.

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.