Limits of Computational Selection and Their Implications for Human–AI Divergence in Convergent Creativity

This study investigated whether humans and generative Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit similar performance in divergent ideation but diverge in convergent selection. To address the critical oversight in current AI creativity research, which predominantly focuses on generative output, this study introduces the original conceptual framework of ‘Selection Alignment’ and a ‘novel dual-phase experimental protocol.’ This research transcends traditional generation-centric evaluations to establish a new paradigm for assessing the evaluative stage of creativity. A controlled experiment involved 240 design professionals (120 idea generators, 120 independent selectors) and two LLM agents (GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro). Participants and LLMs responded to identical divergent prompts, including 10 Alternative Uses Task-style prompts and 10 design problems. Both humans and LLMs generated candidate idea pools, then performed convergent selection by choosing the top five items per prompt. Idea generation was evaluated based on Fluency, Flexibility, and Semantic Breadth. Selection outcomes were compared using top-5 overlap rates derived from semantic clustering. The results indicated near-parity in generation metrics, showing no statistically significant differences between human and AI outputs. However, a substantial divergence was observed in convergent selection: the mean human–AI top-5 overlap was 19.2% for Model-A and 22.4% for Model-B, both significantly below permutation-based chance levels (null mean overlap ≈ 35%). AI selections were strongly predicted by embedding- and probability-based metrics, while human choices were better predicted by context- and experience-based criteria, highlighting a fundamental mechanistic divide. This suggests that convergent selection amplifies human–AI divergence, carrying significant implications for designing co-creative interfaces that integrate human experience into AI’s selection mechanisms.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Information
Published
2026-03-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/info17030243
Primary Topic
Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Limits of Computational Selection and Their Implications for Human–AI Divergence in Convergent Creativity

Ken Nah, Sungwook Jung
Information
Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
article

Limits of Computational Selection and Their Implications for Human–AI Divergence in Convergent Creativity

Ken Nah, Sungwook Jung
article en

Abstract

This study investigated whether humans and generative Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit similar performance in divergent ideation but diverge in convergent selection. To address the critical oversight in current AI creativity research, which predominantly focuses on generative output, this study introduces the original conceptual framework of ‘Selection Alignment’ and a ‘novel dual-phase experimental protocol.’ This research transcends traditional generation-centric evaluations to establish a new paradigm for assessing the evaluative stage of creativity. A controlled experiment involved 240 design professionals (120 idea generators, 120 independent selectors) and two LLM agents (GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro). Participants and LLMs responded to identical divergent prompts, including 10 Alternative Uses Task-style prompts and 10 design problems. Both humans and LLMs generated candidate idea pools, then performed convergent selection by choosing the top five items per prompt. Idea generation was evaluated based on Fluency, Flexibility, and Semantic Breadth. Selection outcomes were compared using top-5 overlap rates derived from semantic clustering. The results indicated near-parity in generation metrics, showing no statistically significant differences between human and AI outputs. However, a substantial divergence was observed in convergent selection: the mean human–AI top-5 overlap was 19.2% for Model-A and 22.4% for Model-B, both significantly below permutation-based chance levels (null mean overlap ≈ 35%). AI selections were strongly predicted by embedding- and probability-based metrics, while human choices were better predicted by context- and experience-based criteria, highlighting a fundamental mechanistic divide. This suggests that convergent selection amplifies human–AI divergence, carrying significant implications for designing co-creative interfaces that integrate human experience into AI’s selection mechanisms.

InformationVol. 17(3)
Zhejiang A & F University (CN), Hongik University (KR)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 40%
Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
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.