人类与人工智能的共同创造:聊天技术会让我们更有创造力吗?

IF 4.1 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Journal of Creative Behavior Pub Date : 2025-04-18 DOI:10.1002/jocb.70022
Kelsey Medeiros, David H. Cropley, Rebecca L. Marrone, Roni Reiter-Palmon
{"title":"人类与人工智能的共同创造:聊天技术会让我们更有创造力吗?","authors":"Kelsey Medeiros,&nbsp;David H. Cropley,&nbsp;Rebecca L. Marrone,&nbsp;Roni Reiter-Palmon","doi":"10.1002/jocb.70022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Much has been made of the apparent capacity for creativity of generative AI. However, as research expands the knowledge base regarding the capabilities and performance of this technology, the prevailing view is shifting away from “AI is creative” and towards a more balanced model of Human-AI co-creativity. Nevertheless, even this paradigm may be impacted by untested assumptions: for example, that generative AI will boost human performance on idea generation tasks. To test that assumption this study primed subjects with lists of words purportedly either from a human or from ChatGPT, and of varying degrees of creativity. Subjects then completed the Divergent Association Task (DAT). The results of this study found no evidence of any difference in divergent thinking resulting from either the source of priming (Human/ChatGPT) or from the level of creativity of the priming (low, typical, and high), <i>with one exception: a low-creativity prime, believed to be from ChatGPT</i>, resulted in lower scores on the DAT compared to other priming conditions. A subsequent regression analysis supported this result, finding only the perceived creativity of the prime to be a weak predictor of DAT scores (in addition to the expected trait of Openness). The consequences of these findings for Human-AI co-creativity are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":39915,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Creative Behavior","volume":"59 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jocb.70022","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Human-AI Co-Creativity: Does ChatGPT Make Us More Creative?\",\"authors\":\"Kelsey Medeiros,&nbsp;David H. Cropley,&nbsp;Rebecca L. Marrone,&nbsp;Roni Reiter-Palmon\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jocb.70022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Much has been made of the apparent capacity for creativity of generative AI. However, as research expands the knowledge base regarding the capabilities and performance of this technology, the prevailing view is shifting away from “AI is creative” and towards a more balanced model of Human-AI co-creativity. Nevertheless, even this paradigm may be impacted by untested assumptions: for example, that generative AI will boost human performance on idea generation tasks. To test that assumption this study primed subjects with lists of words purportedly either from a human or from ChatGPT, and of varying degrees of creativity. Subjects then completed the Divergent Association Task (DAT). The results of this study found no evidence of any difference in divergent thinking resulting from either the source of priming (Human/ChatGPT) or from the level of creativity of the priming (low, typical, and high), <i>with one exception: a low-creativity prime, believed to be from ChatGPT</i>, resulted in lower scores on the DAT compared to other priming conditions. A subsequent regression analysis supported this result, finding only the perceived creativity of the prime to be a weak predictor of DAT scores (in addition to the expected trait of Openness). The consequences of these findings for Human-AI co-creativity are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39915,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Creative Behavior\",\"volume\":\"59 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jocb.70022\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Creative Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jocb.70022\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Creative Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jocb.70022","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生成式人工智能的创造能力已被广泛关注。然而,随着有关该技术能力和性能的研究不断扩大知识库,主流观点正在从 "人工智能具有创造性 "转向更加平衡的人类-人工智能共同创造模式。然而,即使是这种模式也可能受到未经测试的假设的影响:例如,生成式人工智能会提高人类在创意生成任务中的表现。为了验证这一假设,本研究向受试者提供了据称来自人类或 ChatGPT 的单词列表,这些单词具有不同程度的创造性。受试者随后完成了发散联想任务(DAT)。研究结果表明,无论是引物来源(人类/ChatGPT)还是引物的创造力水平(低、典型和高),都不会导致发散思维的差异,但有一个例外:与其他引物条件相比,被认为来自 ChatGPT 的低创造力引物会导致 DAT 分数较低。随后进行的回归分析支持了这一结果,发现除了预期的开放性特质外,只有素材的感知创造性对 DAT 分数的预测作用较弱。本文讨论了这些发现对人类-人工智能共同创造力的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Human-AI Co-Creativity: Does ChatGPT Make Us More Creative?

Much has been made of the apparent capacity for creativity of generative AI. However, as research expands the knowledge base regarding the capabilities and performance of this technology, the prevailing view is shifting away from “AI is creative” and towards a more balanced model of Human-AI co-creativity. Nevertheless, even this paradigm may be impacted by untested assumptions: for example, that generative AI will boost human performance on idea generation tasks. To test that assumption this study primed subjects with lists of words purportedly either from a human or from ChatGPT, and of varying degrees of creativity. Subjects then completed the Divergent Association Task (DAT). The results of this study found no evidence of any difference in divergent thinking resulting from either the source of priming (Human/ChatGPT) or from the level of creativity of the priming (low, typical, and high), with one exception: a low-creativity prime, believed to be from ChatGPT, resulted in lower scores on the DAT compared to other priming conditions. A subsequent regression analysis supported this result, finding only the perceived creativity of the prime to be a weak predictor of DAT scores (in addition to the expected trait of Openness). The consequences of these findings for Human-AI co-creativity are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Creative Behavior
Journal of Creative Behavior Arts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: The Journal of Creative Behavior is our quarterly academic journal citing the most current research in creative thinking. For nearly four decades JCB has been the benchmark scientific periodical in the field. It provides up to date cutting-edge ideas about creativity in education, psychology, business, arts and more.
期刊最新文献
Exploring Human-LLM Collaboration for Creativity Through the Lens of Concepts Synergistic Effects of Collaboration and Problem Construction in Creative Problem-Solving: An Experimental Study Comparing Collaborative Work in Three-Person Groups With Individual Work How Construal Level Affects Innovative Intention at Work Exploring Team Creativity Through Wallas's Framework The Creative Greenhouse: A Systems-Ecological Framework for Designing Environments That Cultivate Creative Resilience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1