Collective creativity in hybrid societies

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02620v1
• Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2026 13:59:08 GMT
• Title: Collective creativity in hybrid societies
• Abstract summary: We argue that creativity in the context of generative AI is best understood as a property of hybrid collectives.<n>What decides the outcome is composition: which agents are present, in what proportion, and how they are connected.
• Score: 0.30782642039384867
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Generative AI is changing how cultural artifacts are created and circulated, and with it our understanding of creativity itself. Researchers disagree about whether these tools enrich or impoverish culture, and we argue that much of that disagreement comes from conflating two distinct components of creativity: novelty, a property of single artifacts, and diversity, a property of populations. We argue further that creativity in the context of generative AI is best understood as a property of hybrid collectives, or populations of interacting people and algorithms, rather than of individuals. AI-assisted ideation reliably raises the novelty of individual output while narrowing diversity in the aggregate, but this is not an inevitable consequence of putting machines in the loop. Because humans and models search in complementary ways, mixed groups can outperform and out-diversify groups of either kind alone, and machine-discovered solutions can enter human culture and persist there. What decides the outcome is composition: which agents are present, in what proportion, and how they are connected. The question is no longer whether AI helps or harms creativity, but which mixtures let individual gains accumulate without eroding collective diversity.

Related papers

• AI-AI co-creation outperforms human pairs in creative tasks [34.66332281789898]
  Both AI-AI co-creation conditions consistently outperformed single-AI creation and human pairs on creativity and novelty.<n>Human pairs performed worst, consistent with production losses in group creativity.<n>These findings indicate that structured, iterative multi-agent AI co-creation can exceed single-AI and human-human ideation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-10T02:25:28Z)
• Individual Gain, Collective Loss: Metacognitive Adaptation in AI-Assisted Creativity [0.0]
  Recent studies reveal a paradox: AI enhances individual creative outputs while reducing collective diversity.<n>We propose selective metacognitive adaptation: routine AI use redistributes rather than uniformly diminishes metacognitive effort.<n>We present a taxonomy of six metacognitive capacities organized by temporal phase, characterize their tendencies under routine AI use, and show how individually rational adaptation produces emergent social costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T00:21:35Z)
• Multi-agent AI systems outperform human teams in creativity [55.46056199651459]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted in research and innovation.<n>Here we demonstrate that multi-agent LLM teams substantially outperform human teams in creativity.<n>This advantage is driven by novelty while maintaining comparable usefulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T05:52:11Z)
• Measuring Creativity in the Age of Generative AI: Distinguishing Human and AI-Generated Creative Performance in Hiring and Talent Systems [0.0]
  This paper reconceptualizes creativity as a distributional and process-based property that emerges under shared constraints and competitive incentives.<n>We introduce a quantitative framework for measuring creativity as novelty in synthesis, operationalized through idea generation and idea transformation within embedding space.<n>The findings suggest that in the age of generative AI, distinctiveness rather than fluency becomes the primary signal of human creative capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-10T12:49:17Z)
• Incentives shape how humans co-create with generative AI [3.182696575286433]
  We show that incentives mediate AI's homogenizing force in a creative writing task.<n>Our results reveal that the effects of generative AI depend not only on the technology itself, but also the behavioral strategies and incentive structures surrounding its use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-04T00:18:51Z)
• CreativeBench: Benchmarking and Enhancing Machine Creativity via Self-Evolving Challenges [69.3795501613098]
  We introduce CreativeBench, a benchmark for evaluating machine creativity in code generation.<n>CreativeBench objectively distinguishes creativity from hallucination via a unified metric defined as the product of quality and novelty.<n>We propose EvoRePE, a plug-and-play inference-time steering strategy that internalizes evolutionary search patterns to consistently enhance machine creativity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-12T12:36:56Z)
• Competition and Diversity in Generative AI [3.1507640991166603]
  We show that competitive markets select for diverse AI models, mitigating monoculture.<n>A generative AI model that performs well in isolation (i.e., according to a benchmark) may fail to provide value in a compet- itive market.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-11T18:34:31Z)
• Alien Recombination: Exploring Concept Blends Beyond Human Cognitive Availability in Visual Art [90.8684263806649]
  We show how AI can transcend human cognitive limitations in visual art creation. Our research hypothesizes that visual art contains a vast unexplored space of conceptual combinations. We present the Alien Recombination method to identify and generate concept combinations that lie beyond human cognitive availability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-18T11:55:38Z)
• Measuring Human Contribution in AI-Assisted Content Generation [66.06040950325969]
  This study raises the research question of measuring human contribution in AI-assisted content generation.<n>By calculating mutual information between human input and AI-assisted output relative to self-information of AI-assisted output, we quantify the proportional information contribution of humans in content generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-27T05:56:04Z)
• Can AI Be as Creative as Humans? [84.43873277557852]
  We prove in theory that AI can be as creative as humans under the condition that it can properly fit the data generated by human creators. The debate on AI's creativity is reduced into the question of its ability to fit a sufficient amount of data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-03T08:49:12Z)
• Picking on the Same Person: Does Algorithmic Monoculture lead to Outcome Homogenization? [90.35044668396591]
  A recurring theme in machine learning is algorithmic monoculture: the same systems, or systems that share components, are deployed by multiple decision-makers. We propose the component-sharing hypothesis: if decision-makers share components like training data or specific models, then they will produce more homogeneous outcomes. We test this hypothesis on algorithmic fairness benchmarks, demonstrating that sharing training data reliably exacerbates homogenization. We conclude with philosophical analyses of and societal challenges for outcome homogenization, with an eye towards implications for deployed machine learning systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-25T09:33:11Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.