Can we derive computational metrics to quantify visual creativity in drawings across intelligent agents, while accounting for inherent differences in technical skill and style? To answer this, we curate a novel dataset consisting of 1338 drawings by children, adults and AI on a creative drawing task. We characterize two aspects of the drawings -- (1) style and (2) content. For style, we define measures of ink density, ink distribution and number of elements. For content, we use expert-annotated categories to study conceptual diversity, and image and text embeddings to compute distance measures. We compare the style, content and creativity of children, adults and AI drawings and build simple models to predict expert and automated creativity scores. We find significant differences in style and content in the groups -- children's drawings had more components, AI drawings had greater ink density, and adult drawings revealed maximum conceptual diversity. Notably, we highlight a misalignment between creativity judgments obtained through expert and automated ratings and discuss its implications. Through these efforts, our work provides, to the best of our knowledge, the first framework for studying human and artificial creativity beyond the textual modality, and attempts to arrive at the domain-agnostic principles underlying creativity. Our data and scripts are available on GitHub.

Researchers in social science and psychology have recently proposed using large language models (LLMs) as replacements for humans in behavioral research. In addition to arguments about whether LLMs accurately capture population-level patterns, this has raised questions about whether LLMs capture human-like conceptual diversity. Separately, it is debated whether post-training alignment (RLHF or RLAIF) affects models' internal diversity. Inspired by human studies, we use a new way of measuring the conceptual diversity of synthetically-generated LLM "populations" by relating the internal variability of simulated individuals to the population-level variability. We use this approach to evaluate non-aligned and aligned LLMs on two domains with rich human behavioral data. While no model reaches human-like diversity, aligned models generally display less diversity than their instruction fine-tuned counterparts. Our findings highlight potential trade-offs between increasing models' value alignment and decreasing the diversity of their conceptual representations.

A word may contain one or more hidden concepts. While the "animal" word evokes many images in our minds and encapsulates many concepts (birds, dogs, cats, crocodiles, etc.), the `parrot' word evokes a single image (a colored bird with a short, hooked beak and the ability to mimic sounds). In spoken or written texts, we use some words in a general sense and some in a detailed way to point to a specific object. Until now, a text's conceptual diversity value cannot be determined using a standard and precise technique. This research contributes to the natural language processing field of AI by offering a standardized method and a generic metric for evaluating and comparing concept diversity in different texts and domains. It also contributes to the field of semantic research of languages. If we give examples for the diversity score of two sentences, "He discovered an unknown entity." has a high conceptual diversity score (16.6801), and "The endoplasmic reticulum forms a series of flattened sacs within the cytoplasm of eukaryotic cells." sentence has a low conceptual diversity score which is 3.9068.