Large Language Models show both individual and collective creativity comparable to humans
arXiv:2412.03151 · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101870
Abstract
Artificial intelligence has, so far, largely automated routine tasks, but what does it mean for the future of work if Large Language Models (LLMs) show creativity comparable to humans? To measure the creativity of LLMs holistically, the current study uses 13 creative tasks spanning three domains. We benchmark the LLMs against individual humans, and also take a novel approach by comparing them to the collective creativity of groups of humans. We find that the best LLMs (Claude and GPT-4) rank in the 52nd percentile against humans, and overall LLMs excel in divergent thinking and problem solving but lag in creative writing. When questioned 10 times, an LLM's collective creativity is equivalent to 8-10 humans. When more responses are requested, two additional responses of LLMs equal one extra human. Ultimately, LLMs, when optimally applied, may compete with a small group of humans in the future of work.
References in corpus (4)
- Generative artificial intelligence enhances creativity but reduces the diversity of novel content
- Artificial muses: Generative Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Have Risen to Human-Level Creativity
- Is ChatGPT the Ultimate Programming Assistant -- How far is it?
- A Confederacy of Models: a Comprehensive Evaluation of LLMs on Creative Writing