ChatGPT scored better than 99% of humans in producing different and original ideas, and generated 7 times more top-rated product ideas than elite business school students.
However, creativity is multifaceted, and in a personal experiment, ChatGPT’s creative output was considered charming but not on par with renowned children’s stories like “Winnie the Pooh”.
Imagine having a virtual assistant that can help generate a wide range of creative ideas for a design project.
AI may not always produce content that matches the quality and depth of human creativity.
UX designers still play a crucial role in evaluating and refining those AI-generated ideas to ensure they meet the desired standards
AI overwhelmingly surpasses humans at creative ideation, at least in the idea-producing stage of the diverge-converge model. Humans must then winnow the profusion of creative ideas generated by AI.
Two research studies of ChatGPT 4 both arrive at the audacious claim that AI outshines humans for idea generation.
The only area where AI was rated slightly worse than humans was in the novelty of the product ideas.
third study concluded that AI was highly creative and sometimes better than human experts.
AI excels in idea generation, including the plot twists for my little story. It still lacks judgment, an area where human contribution should be significant. Leverage AI for an ideation torrent, then harness human discernment to refine and select the most potent ideas for action.
AI shines in the divergence stage, while humans can contribute more effectively to the convergence stage.
It’s slightly less great (but still stunningly good) at changing strategies midstride.
Students and AI were both given the following assignment: “You are a creative entrepreneur looking to generate new product ideas
It’s often the case that an idea that initially seems impossible to build turns out to be a great success after the engineers have mulled it over and discovered how to build it after all.
The difference between humans and AI was significant (p<0.001), whereas the difference between the two AI conditions (with and without prompting with good examples) was not significant.
ChatGPT scored better than 99% of humans in producing different and original ideas, and generated 7 times more top-rated product ideas than elite business school students.
However, creativity is multifaceted, and in a personal experiment, ChatGPT’s creative output was considered charming but not on par with renowned children’s stories like “Winnie the Pooh”.
Imagine having a virtual assistant that can help generate a wide range of creative ideas for a design project.
AI may not always produce content that matches the quality and depth of human creativity.
UX designers still play a crucial role in evaluating and refining those AI-generated ideas to ensure they meet the desired standards
AI overwhelmingly surpasses humans at creative ideation, at least in the idea-producing stage of the diverge-converge model. Humans must then winnow the profusion of creative ideas generated by AI.
Two research studies of ChatGPT 4 both arrive at the audacious claim that AI outshines humans for idea generation.
The only area where AI was rated slightly worse than humans was in the novelty of the product ideas.
third study concluded that AI was highly creative and sometimes better than human experts.
AI excels in idea generation, including the plot twists for my little story. It still lacks judgment, an area where human contribution should be significant. Leverage AI for an ideation torrent, then harness human discernment to refine and select the most potent ideas for action.
AI shines in the divergence stage, while humans can contribute more effectively to the convergence stage.
It’s slightly less great (but still stunningly good) at changing strategies midstride.
Students and AI were both given the following assignment: “You are a creative entrepreneur looking to generate new product ideas
It’s often the case that an idea that initially seems impossible to build turns out to be a great success after the engineers have mulled it over and discovered how to build it after all.
The difference between humans and AI was significant (p<0.001), whereas the difference between the two AI conditions (with and without prompting with good examples) was not significant.
