In a world where generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT, Midjourney, or other similar technologies are emerging as disruptive instruments, a question arises: Is creativity still exclusive to the human being?
I had a conversation on this topic with my student, Ryan Derfoul, who contributed to the writing of this article. As researchers specializing in psychology, we want to bring nuances that we believe are important. What is creativity? Does AI generate creative products? Does it engage in a creative process, and can it be used to assist us? And finally, does it threaten our own creativity?
What is creativity?
Creativity is not limited to artistic creation. It is essential in all spheres of activity where innovative ideas are valued. This includes areas of expertise such as science and engineering, as well as everyday activities with more modest scope, such as designing a new recipe to compensate for missing ingredients in the pantry.
To assess a person's creative trend, scientists often use questionnaires that cover a wide range of activity areas, such as visual arts, music, writing, dance, theater, architecture, humor, scientific discoveries, inventions, and even cooking. It is possible to consider the role of AI in each of these activities. The omnipresence of creativity at work, in leisure, and in everyday life is probably one of the reasons why AI raises so many concerns.
Creative ideas, solutions, or products are just one dimension of creativity. As my student Ryan aptly puts it, it can be understood as both a journey and a destination. Creative ideas form the destination, but a long journey precedes it: the process. Scientists interested in creativity have long made this distinction between product and process. In our opinion, this important nuance should color all questions surrounding creativity and AI.
Does AI generate creative products?
Yes.
Several studies in psychology support the idea that AI produces ideas that are more creative than the average human, at least in some classic exercises studied by scientists.
A researcher in Australia compared the performances of ChatGPT 4.0 to those of a sample of about 8,000 people. They had to perform a divergent thinking exercise consisting of producing as many different words as possible. The creativity of the ideas produced by the AI was superior to that of about 80% of the ideas proposed by humans.
Another group of scientists asked ChatGPT 4.0 to perform several exercises drawn from the Torrance creativity test battery, the most widely used instrument for assessing creative thinking. The responses were then submitted to Scholastic Testing Services, an organization responsible for objectively evaluating performances. The AI's ideas were judged to be more original than those of 99% of the individuals who had completed the battery in the past. These results have been replicated by other groups of scientists in the United States and Europe.
AI is therefore capable of generating creative products, which even win art competitions. Does this feat mean that its products are the result of a creative process?
Does AI engage in a creative process?
No, probably not.
Several scientists have studied the precursors of the creative process and its mental operations in humans. One of the most influential approaches is the Geneplore model, which breaks down the formation of creative products into two phases:
Generation: the phase during which several preliminary ideas are formed.
Exploration: the phase during which ideas are refined to meet the demands of the context.
According to this model, the human creative process involves a back-and-forth between these two phases, as well as active reflection and intention from the person to engage in such a process.
What about AI?
AI does not possess such an intention for creativity, and for now, this intention falls to the person using the tool and performing the creative process. At best, AI's products could be defined as artificial creativity and, for now, the creative prowess of this technology can only emerge in collaboration with the person behind the screen.
Can AI assist our creative process?
Yes, probably.
Some emerging work focuses on using AI to assist our creative process. A research team in Prague asked about 130 people to perform a creativity exercise using or not using ChatGPT 3.5. Those who used the AI produced ideas of better quality and more originality, and reported a greater sense of personal efficacy.
The potential is undeniable, but so is the risk of using AI as a substitute for the creative process. In truth, the current scientific literature says too little about how humans use AI to find original solutions.
How then can we harmonize the use of AI with our creative process?
One possibility is to use this new technology to help people refine their ideas and reflect on their own process, what is called metacognition. A series of recent studies, conducted in our laboratory, explored the benefits of automated feedback during the generation and exploration of ideas. Individuals who received feedback on their degree of originality achieved better results in the exercises than those who received no assistance. The context of co-creation with AI could perhaps enhance the creative potential of the human being.
Does AI threaten our creativity?
That remains to be seen…
This kind of technological transformation is not without precedent.
If the human learns “this”, he will implant forgetfulness in his soul; he will cease to exercise his memory since he will rely on “this technology”, remembering things not in himself, but through external references.
This passage, drawn from a famous text by Plato, refers to writing and the fear that it may alter the functioning of human thought.
The emergence of AI sometimes raises similar concerns, namely that it substitutes what human beings do best. Everyone continues to learn as new AI-based tools emerge. The idea of using this technology to assist the creative process of human beings represents both great potential and risk. 
Pier-Luc de Chantal, Professor of Psychology, University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM)
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The Conversation