Divergent creativity in humans and large language models

The recent surge of Large Language Models (LLMs) has led to claims that they are approaching a level of creativity akin to human capabilities. This idea has sparked a blend of excitement and apprehension. However, a critical piece that has been missing in this discourse is a systematic evaluation of LLMs' semantic diversity, particularly in comparison to human divergent thinking. To bridge this gap, we leverage recent advances in computational creativity to analyze semantic divergence in both state-of-the-art LLMs and a substantial dataset of 100,000 humans. These divergence-based measures index associative thinking-the ability to access and combine remote concepts in semantic space-an established facet of creative cognition. We benchmark performance on the Divergent Association Task (DAT) and across multiple creative-writing tasks (haiku, story synopses, and flash fiction), using identical, objective scoring. We found evidence that LLMs can surpass average human performance on the DAT, and approach human creative writing abilities, yet they remain below the mean creativity scores observed among the more creative segment of human participants. Notably, even the top performing LLMs are still largely surpassed by the aggregated top half of human participants, underscoring a ceiling that current LLMs still fail to surpass. We also systematically varied linguistic strategy prompts and temperature, observing reliable gains in semantic divergence for several models. Our human-machine benchmarking framework addresses the polemic surrounding the imminent replacement of human creative labor by AI, disentangling the quality of the respective creative linguistic outputs using established objective measures. While prompting deeper exploration of the distinctive elements of human inventive thought compared to those of AI systems, we lay out a series of techniques to improve their outputs with respect to semantic diversity, such as prompt design and hyper-parameter tuning.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Reports
Published
2026-01-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-25157-3
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
42.68

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Divergent creativity in humans and large language models

Karim Jerbi, Jay A. Olson, Antoine Bellemare-Pepin, François Lespinasse et al.
1 citations
Scientific Reports
Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
42.68
article

Divergent creativity in humans and large language models

Karim Jerbi, Jay A. Olson, Antoine Bellemare-Pepin, François Lespinasse, Yann Harel, Philipp Thölke, Yoshua Bengio, Kory Mathewson
article en
1 citations

Abstract

The recent surge of Large Language Models (LLMs) has led to claims that they are approaching a level of creativity akin to human capabilities. This idea has sparked a blend of excitement and apprehension. However, a critical piece that has been missing in this discourse is a systematic evaluation of LLMs' semantic diversity, particularly in comparison to human divergent thinking. To bridge this gap, we leverage recent advances in computational creativity to analyze semantic divergence in both state-of-the-art LLMs and a substantial dataset of 100,000 humans. These divergence-based measures index associative thinking-the ability to access and combine remote concepts in semantic space-an established facet of creative cognition. We benchmark performance on the Divergent Association Task (DAT) and across multiple creative-writing tasks (haiku, story synopses, and flash fiction), using identical, objective scoring. We found evidence that LLMs can surpass average human performance on the DAT, and approach human creative writing abilities, yet they remain below the mean creativity scores observed among the more creative segment of human participants. Notably, even the top performing LLMs are still largely surpassed by the aggregated top half of human participants, underscoring a ceiling that current LLMs still fail to surpass. We also systematically varied linguistic strategy prompts and temperature, observing reliable gains in semantic divergence for several models. Our human-machine benchmarking framework addresses the polemic surrounding the imminent replacement of human creative labor by AI, disentangling the quality of the respective creative linguistic outputs using established objective measures. While prompting deeper exploration of the distinctive elements of human inventive thought compared to those of AI systems, we lay out a series of techniques to improve their outputs with respect to semantic diversity, such as prompt design and hyper-parameter tuning.

Scientific ReportsVol. 16(1)
Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital (CA), University of Toronto (CA), Concordia University (US), Mila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute (CA), Concordia University (CA), Université de Montréal (CA)
Canada Research Chairs, Concordia University, Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
42.68
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.