Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

AI Delivers Creative Output but Struggles with Thinking Processes

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.23327 v1 pith:BLN53B7V submitted 2025-03-30 cs.HC

classification cs.HC
keywords creativethinkingtaskshumansmodelsacrosscreativitygenuine
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

A key objective in artificial intelligence (AI) development is to create systems that match or surpass human creativity. Although current AI models perform well across diverse creative tasks, it remains unclear whether these achievements reflect genuine creative thinking. This study examined whether AI models (GPT-3.5-turbo, GPT-4, and GPT-4o) engage in creative thinking by comparing their performance with humans across various creative tasks and core cognitive processes. Results showed that AI models outperformed humans in divergent thinking, convergent thinking, and insight problem-solving, but underperformed in creative writing. Compared to humans, AI generated lower forward flow values in both free and chain association tasks and showed lower accuracy in the representational change task. In creative evaluation, AI exhibited no significant correlation between the weights of novelty and appropriateness when predicting creative ratings, suggesting the absence of a human-like trade-off strategy. AI also had higher decision error scores in creative selection, suggesting difficulty identifying the most creative ideas. These findings suggest that while AI can mimic human creativity, its strong performance in creative tasks is likely driven by non-creative mechanisms rather than genuine creative thinking.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Generative AI and Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A meta-analysis of 28 studies finds no average creativity gap between GenAI and humans, a small boost when humans collaborate with GenAI, and a large drop in idea diversity in those collaborations.

Pith tools