Amplifying the Anomaly: How Humans Choose Unproven Options and Large Language Models Avoid Them

References

• Al-Khazraji, L. R., Abbas, A. R., & Jamil, A. S. (2023). A systematic review of deep dream. Iraqi Journal of Computers, Communications, Control and Systems Engineering, 23(2), 192–209.
   Google Scholar
• Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123–167.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, B. R., Shah, J. H. & Kreminski, M. (2024). Homogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation. In Creativity and Cognition (C&C ’24), June 23–26, 2024, Chicago, IL, USA (p. 13). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3635636.3656204.
   Google Scholar
• Bakker, D. R., & Martin, F. H. (2015). Musical chords and emotion: Major and minor triads are processed for emotion. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 15(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-014-0309-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barron, F. (1993). Controllable oddness as a resource in creativity. Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 182–184. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0403_3
   Google Scholar
• Beghetto, R. A. (2021). There is no creativity without uncertainty: Dubito Ergo Creo. Journal of Creativity, 31(100005), 100005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2021.100005
   Google Scholar
• Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 610–623). https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
   Google Scholar
• Binz, M., & Schulz, E. (2023). Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(6), e2218523120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2218523120
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boden, M. (1998). Creativity and artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 103(1–2), 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(98)00055-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt, A. (2021). Defining creativity: A view from the arts. Creativity Research Journal, 32(2), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2020.1855905
   Google Scholar
• Brandt, A. (2022). Beethoven and divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2022.2088131
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt, A. (2023). Beethoven’s Ninth and AI’s Tenth: A comparison of human and computational creativity. Journal of Creativity, 33(3), 100068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2023.100068
   Google Scholar
• Brauwers, G. & Frasincar, F. (2021). A general survey on attention mechanisms in deep learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35(4), 3279–3298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buczak, P., Huang, H., Forthmann, B., & Doebler, P. (2023). The machines take over: A comparison of various supervised learning approaches for automated scoring of divergent thinking tasks. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 57(1), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.559
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunescu, R. C. & Uduehi, O. O. (2019). Learning to surprise: A composer-audience architecture. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC’19) (pp. 41–48).
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67(6), 380–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040373
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corazza, G. E. (2016). Potential originality and effectiveness: The dynamic definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1195627
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummings, E. E. (1994). In Richard S. Kennedy (Ed.), Selected poems. With introduction and commentary by Richard S. Kennedy Liveright.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, J. H., & MacNaughton, I. (2020). Monty Python’s flying circus: The complete series [ DVD]. Universal Pictures Home Entertainment.
   Google Scholar
• Diederen, K. M., & Fletcher, P. C. (2021). Dopamine, prediction error and beyond. The Neuroscientist, 27(1), 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858420907591
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diedrich, J., Benedek, M., Jauk, E., & Neubauer, A. C. (2015). Are creative ideas novel and useful? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038688
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietrich, A. (2015). How creativity happens in the brain. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• DiStefano, P. V., Patterson, J. D., & Beaty, R. E. (2024). Automatic scoring of metaphor creativity with large language models. Creativity Research Journal, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2024.2326343
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eagleman, D., & Brandt, A. (2017). The runaway species: How human creativity remakes the world. Catapult.
   Google Scholar
• Elgammal, A., Liu, B., Elhoseiny, M., & Mazzone, M. (2017). CAN: Creative adversarial networks generating “art” by learning about styles and deviating from style norms. In A. Goel, A. Jordanous, & A. Pease (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Creativity, ICCC. Georgia Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Esling, P., & Devis, N. (2020). Creativity in the era of artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.05959. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2008.05959
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, M. (1985). Essays (W. Zimmermann Ed.). Beginner Press.
   Google Scholar
• Franceschelli, G., & Musolesi, M. (2023). On the creativity of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.00008. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.00008
   Google Scholar
• Gagnon, L., & Peretz, I. (2003). Mode and tempo relative contributions to “happy-sad” judgements in equitone melodies. Cognition and Emotion, 17(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930302279
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganguli, D., Hernandez, D., Lovitt, L., Askell, A., Bai, Y., Chen, A. & Clark, J. (2022, June). Predictability and surprise in large generative models. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 1747–1764). https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533229
   Google Scholar
• Gilhooly, K. (2023). AI vs humans in the AUT: Simulations to LLMs. Journal of Creativity, 100071(1), 100071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2023.100071
   Google Scholar
• Gjerdingen, R. O. (2007). Partimento, que me veux-tu? Journal of Music Theory, 51(1), 85–135. https://doi.org/10.1215/00222909-2008-024
   Google Scholar
• González-Díaz, J., & Palacios-Huerta, I. (2022). AlphaZero Ideas ( SSRN Scholarly Paper 4140916). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4140916
   Google Scholar
• Greene, B. (1999). The elegant universe. W.W. Norton & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Guzik, E. E., Byrge, C., & Gilde, C. (2023). The originality of machines: AI takes the Torrance Test. Journal of Creativity, 33(3), 100065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2023.100065
   Google Scholar
• Hiesinger, P. R. (2021). The self-assembling brain: How neural networks grow smarter. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hinton, G., Deng, L., Yu, D., Dahl, G. E., Mohamed, A. R., Jaitly, N., Senior, A., Vanhoucke, V., Nguyen, P., Sainath, T., & Kingsbury, B. (2012). Deep neural networks for acoustic modeling in speech recognition: The shared views of four research groups. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 29(6), 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.2205597
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoel, E. (2022). The banality of ChatGPT. Retrieved on January 26, 2023. https://erikhoel.substack.com/p/the-banality-of-chatgpt
   Google Scholar
• Horn, K., & Huron, D. (2015). On the changing use of the major and minor modes 1750–1900. Music Theory Online, 21(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.30535/mto.21.1.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubert, K. F., Awa, K. N., & Zabelina, D. L. (2024). The current state of artificial intelligence generative language models is more creative than humans on divergent thinking tasks. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 3440. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53303-w
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jacoby, N., Margulis, E. H., Clayton, M., Hannon, E., Honing, H., Iversen, J. & Wald Fuhrmann, M. (2020). Cross-cultural work in music cognition: Challenges, insights, and recommendations. Music Perception, 37(3), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1525/MP.2020.37.3.185
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jobs, S. (2007). Transcript – iPhone keynote 2007. European Rhetoric. http://www.european-rhetoric.com/analyses/ikeynote-analysis-iphone/transcript-2007/
   Google Scholar
• Jones, R. (2023, October 18). How Sam Altman got it wrong on a key part of AI: ‘Creativity has been easier for ai than people think [ Fortune]. https://fortune.com/2023/10/18/openai-sam-altman-misjudged-ai-creativity-chatgpt/
   Google Scholar
• Kanwisher, N., Khosla, M., & Dobs, K. (2023). Using artificial neural networks to ask ‘why’ questions of minds and brains. Trends in Neurosciences, 46(3), 240–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2022.12.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasparov, G. K. & King, D. (2000). Kasparov against the world: The story of the greatest online challenge. Incorporated. Kasparov Chess Online.
   Google Scholar
• Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2009). The Aha! moment: The cognitive neuroscience of insight. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(4), 210–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01638.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamm, K. (2017). “The will to adorn”: Nick Cave’s soundsuits and the queer reframing of black masculinity. Critical Arts, 31(3), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/02560046.2017.1383494
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, Y., Han, T., Ma, S., Zhang, J., Yang, Y., Tian, J., He, H., Li, A., He, M., Liu, Z., Wu, Z., Zhao, L., Zhu, D., Li, X., Qiang, N., Shen, D., Liu, T., & Ge, B. (2023). Summary of ChatGPT- related research and perspective towards the future of large language models. Meta-Radiology, 1(2), 100017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metrad.2023.100017
   Google Scholar
• Macklay, S. (2014). Many, many cadences for string quartet. Edition Peters.
   Google Scholar
• Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048850
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meskó, B. (2023). Prompt engineering as an important emerging skill for medical professionals: Tutorial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e50638. https://doi.org/10.2196/50638
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, L. B. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, A. I. (2019). The artist in the machine: The world of AI-powered creativity. Mit Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moro, A., Greco, M., & Cappa, S. F. (2023). Large languages, impossible languages and human brains. Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 167, 82–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2023.07.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moszynska, A. (2020). Abstract art (world of art). Thames & Hudson.
   Google Scholar
• Nemerov, A. (2021). Fierce Poise: Helen Frankenthaler and 1950s New York. Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Organisciak, P., Acar, S., Dumas, D., & Berthiaume, K. (2023). Beyond semantic distance: Automated scoring of divergent thinking greatly improves with large language models. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 49, 101356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101356
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orwig, W., Edenbaum, E. R., Greene, J. D., & Schacter, D. L. (2024). The language of creativity: Evidence from Humans and large language models. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 58(1), 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.636
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P. & Lowe, R. (2022). Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 27730–27744.
   Google Scholar
• Page, S. E. (2019). The diversity bonus: How great teams pay off in the knowledge economy. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Patterson, J. D., Barbot, B., Lloyd-Cox, J., & Beaty, R. E. (2023). AuDrA: An automated drawing assessment platform for evaluating creativity. Behavior Research Methods, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02258-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ploin, A., Eynon, R., Hjorth, I., & Osborne, M. A. (2022). AI and the arts: How machine learning is changing artistic work. Report from the creative algorithmic intelligence research project. https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/news-events/reports/ai-the-arts/
   Google Scholar
• Rafner, J. Beaty, R. E. Kaufman, J. C. Lubart, T. & Sherson, J. (2023). Creativity in the age of generative AI. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(11), 1836–1838.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rawte, V. Sheth, A. & Das, A. (2023). A survey of hallucination in large foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05922.
   Google Scholar
• Ross, A. (2007). The rest is noise: Listening to the twentieth century. Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. (2023). AI can only produce artificial creativity. Journal of Creativity, 33(3), 100063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2023.100063
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samsi, S., Zhao, D., McDonald, J., Li, B., Michaleas, A., Jones, M., & Gadepally, V. (2023). “From words to Watts: Benchmarking the energy costs of large language Model inference.” 2023 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC), Boston, MA, USA (pp. 1–9). https://doi.org/10.1109/HPEC58863.2023.10363447
   Google Scholar
• Schmidhuber, J. (2015). Deep learning in neural networks: An overview. Neural Networks, 61, 85–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2014.09.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schubert, F. (1973). Complete chamber music for strings. Dover Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Shanahan, M. (2022). Talking about large language models. arXiv:2212.03551 [cs.CL].
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2012). Taking the U.S. Patent office criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion creativity definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24(2–3), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.676974
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2018). Defining creativity: Don’t we also need to define what is not creative? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 52(1), 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sosa, R. (2019). Accretion theory of ideation: Evaluation regimes for ideation stages. Design Science, 5, e23. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2019.22
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein, M. I. (1974). Stimulating creativity, Vol I. Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stokes, P. D. (2005). Creativity from constraints: The psychology of breakthrough. Springer Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Suri, G., Slater, L. R., Ziaee, A., & Nguyen, M. (2024). Do large language models show decision heuristics similar to humans? A case study using GPT-3.5. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 153(4), 1066–1075. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001547
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G. (2003). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• van Beethoven, L. (1989). Symphonies nos. 8 and 9 in full score. Dover Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Vogelstein, F. (2013). And then Steve Said,“Let There Be an iPhone. The New York Times Magazine, 4.
   Google Scholar
• Zahavy, T., Veeriah, V., Hou, S., Waugh, K., Lai, M., Leurent, E. & Singh, S. (2023). Diversifying ai: Towards creative chess with alphazero. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.09175.
   Google Scholar