Artificial Intelligence Enhances Human Creativity Through Real-Time Evaluative Feedback
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into creative work continues to expand, yet its impact on human creativity itself—beyond simply providing ideas—remains uncertain. We reposition AI’s role from idea generator to idea evaluator, using trained models to provide real-time feedback on human-generated ideas. Across two studies—a preregistered online experiment involving individuals with varying levels of expertise (N = 554) and a large-scale naturalistic experiment during a year-long museum exhibit (N = 36,198)—participants generated solutions to real-world problems or created visual sketches. AI feedback significantly improved participant originality in both verbal and visual creative domains. Mediation analyses revealed these gains were partly driven by changes in individuals’ self-evaluation of their own originality, implying a key role for metacognition—the ability to monitor, control and regulate one’s thinking. These findings suggest that AI’s potential extends beyond generation to include idea evaluation, helping humans assess and refine their ideas through real-time feedback.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it