Songs used by ChatGPT included Herbert Grönemeyer's 1984 synth-pop sendup of masculinity, ' (Men). Songs used by ChatGPT included Herbert Grönemeyer's 1984 synth-pop sendup of masculinity, ' (Men). OpenAI ordered to pay undisclosed damages for training its language models on artists' work without permission The Munich regional court sided in favour of Germany's music rights society GEMA, which said ChatGPT had harvested protected lyrics by popular artists to "learn" from them. The collecting society GEMA, which manages the rights of composers, lyricists and music publishers and has approximately 100,000 members, filed the case against OpenAI in November 2024. The lawsuit was seen as a key European test case in a campaign to stop AI scraping of creative output.

Numerous powerful large language models (LLMs) are now available for use as writing support tools, idea generators, and beyond. Although these LLMs are marketed as helpful creative assistants, several works have shown that using an LLM as a creative partner results in a narrower set of creative outputs. However, these studies only consider the effects of interacting with a single LLM, begging the question of whether such narrowed creativity stems from using a particular LLM -- which arguably has a limited range of outputs -- or from using LLMs in general as creative assistants. To study this question, we elicit creative responses from humans and a broad set of LLMs using standardized creativity tests and compare the population-level diversity of responses. We find that LLM responses are much more similar to other LLM responses than human responses are to each other, even after controlling for response structure and other key variables. This finding of significant homogeneity in creative outputs across the LLMs we evaluate adds a new dimension to the ongoing conversation about creativity and LLMs. If today's LLMs behave similarly, using them as a creative partners -- regardless of the model used -- may drive all users towards a limited set of "creative" outputs.

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems capable of generating creative outputs are reshaping our understanding of creativity. This shift presents an opportunity for creativity researchers to reevaluate the key components of the creative process. In particular, the advanced capabilities of AI underscore the importance of studying the internal processes of creativity. This paper explores the neurobiological machinery that underlies these internal processes and describes the experiential component of creativity. It is concluded that although the products of artificial and human creativity can be similar, the internal processes are different. The paper also discusses how AI may negatively affect the internal processes of human creativity, such as the development of skills, the integration of knowledge, and the diversity of ideas.

Creativity is a multifaceted construct at the crossroads of individual expression, problem solving, and innovation. Human creativity is pivotal in shaping cultures and has undergone continuous transformation across historical epochs. Our understanding of this ability is now influencing the landscape of artificial intelligence and cognitive systems (1-5). In the past few years, the advent of sophisticated Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred considerable interest in evaluating their capabilities and apparent human-like traits (6), particularly in terms of their impacts on human creative processes (7, 8). However, the so-called creative abilities of modern LLMs have yet to be systematically evaluated and compared to humans on benchmarking tasks that are suitable for both. Although the ability to generate novel and aesthetically pleasing artifacts has long been considered a uniquely human attribute, this view has been challenged by the recent advances in generative AI. This technological progress has ignited discussions surrounding the creative capabilities of machines (9-12), ushering in the emerging field of computational creativity--a multidisciplinary domain that explores the potential of artificial systems to exhibit creativity in a manner analogous to human cognition. The release of GPT-4 was marked with an exceptional gain in performance across various standardized benchmarks (13). Demonstrating its versatility in language-and vision-based tasks, GPT-4 has successfully passed a uniform bar examination, the SAT, and multiple AP exams, transcending the boundaries of traditional AI capabilities.

Generative AI (GenAI) has spurred the expectation of being creative, due to its ability to generate content, yet so far, its creativity has somewhat disappointed, because it is trained using existing data following human intentions to generate outputs. The purpose of this paper is to explore what is required to evolve AI from generative to creative. Based on a reinforcement learning approach and building upon various research streams of computational creativity, we develop a triple prompt-response-reward engineering framework to develop the creative capability of GenAI. This framework consists of three components: 1) a prompt model for expected creativity by developing discriminative prompts that are objectively, individually, or socially novel, 2) a response model for observed creativity by generating surprising outputs that are incrementally, disruptively, or radically innovative, and 3) a reward model for improving creativity over time by incorporating feedback from the AI, the creator/manager, and/or the customers. This framework enables the application of GenAI for various levels of creativity strategically.

Hallucinations in large language models (LLMs) are always seen as limitations. However, could they also be a source of creativity? This survey explores this possibility, suggesting that hallucinations may contribute to LLM application by fostering creativity. This survey begins with a review of the taxonomy of hallucinations and their negative impact on LLM reliability in critical applications. Then, through historical examples and recent relevant theories, the survey explores the potential creative benefits of hallucinations in LLMs. To elucidate the value and evaluation criteria of this connection, we delve into the definitions and assessment methods of creativity. Following the framework of divergent and convergent thinking phases, the survey systematically reviews the literature on transforming and harnessing hallucinations for creativity in LLMs. Finally, the survey discusses future research directions, emphasizing the need to further explore and refine the application of hallucinations in creative processes within LLMs.

Recently I innocently posted online (okay, maybe not so innocently) a few graphic images from a hot and hip open-source AI image generator called Stable Diffusion 2. The reason for this was an ongoing debate I have had for years with an architect friend of mine. My position is that AI will eventually (in our lifetimes) compete successfully with human creativity in essentially every conceivable field. My architect friend, and most people, do not agree. I wanted to show my friend that the AI could create a pleasing, surprising and imaginative graphic for the cover of a hypothetical book on modern architecture, or perhaps a banner ad for an architecture conference. So I typed the following into the text box on the front page of the Stable Diffusion 2 website: "architect imagination, building with clean lines, impressionist".

In a previous article I introduced a concept of a Creative Intelligence (CI) as either a human or AI that produces creative output. I introduced the term Intelligence Director (ID) as the one who directs the CI towards a goal. I introduced the concept of a Constraint Language (CL) as a language used for constraining the CI working on a given task. This article builds on the previous, and focuses more on constraints and why they are so important for creativity. It is well known that constraints and art go hand in hand.