LLMs Generate Kitsch

Xenia Klinge; Stefan Ortlieb; Alexander Koller

cs.CLApr 1, 2026

LLMs Generate Kitsch

Authors: Xenia Klinge, Stefan Ortlieb, Alexander Koller

Organizations: Saarland University · DFKI · University of Bamberg

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate pictures, texts, music, videos, and other works that have traditionally required human creativity. LLM-generated artifacts are often rated better than human-generated works in controlled studies. At the same time, they can come across as generic and hollow. We propose to resolve this tension by arguing that LLMs systematically generate kitsch, and that this is a consequence of the way in which they are trained. We also show empirically that readers perceive LLM-generated stories as kitschier, if we control for their definition of "kitsch". We discuss implications for the design of future studies and for creative tasks such as research and coding.

Computational Creativity

Computational creativity studies how machines can generate, evaluate, and collaborate on novel, valuable ideas and artifacts.

See all 114 papers

Why Large Language Models and Humans Converge and Diverge in Evaluating Creativity
Jul 24, 2026Pengzhao Lyu, Yeun Joon Kim, Hanlin Xiao +1Creativity Assessment LLM Evaluation
Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1AG, United Kingdom · Institute of Metabolic Science, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom · Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom +2
The Limits of Automatic Evaluation of Creativity in Large Language Models
Aug 24, 2026Alessandro Tutone, Giorgio Franceschelli, Mirco MusolesiCreativity Assessment Language Model Generation Evaluation
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. · Centre for Artificial Intelligence, Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Interpretable Stylistic Variation in Human and LLM Writing Across Genres, Models, and Decoding Strategies
Apr 15, 2026Swati Rallapalli, Shannon Gallagher, Ronald Yurko +4Stylometry Language Model Generation Evaluation
Software Engineering Institute, AI Division, Carnegie Mellon University · Department of Statistics & Data Science, Carnegie Mellon University

Jul 24, 2026J/K move · Enter open · S save

Why Large Language Models and Humans Converge and Diverge in Evaluating Creativity

Pengzhao Lyu, Yeun Joon Kim, Hanlin Xiao, Yingyue Luna Luan

Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1AG, United Kingdom · Institute of Metabolic Science, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom · Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom+2

Creativity Assessment LLM Evaluation AI Alignment Computational Creativity

Open paper AskPDF arXiv

Despite the growing use of large language models (LLMs) as creativity evaluators, evidence of their alignment with human evaluations remains mixed, raising the question of when and why their judgments converge with or diverge from those of humans. Across three studies and six widely used LLMs, we addressed this gap by identifying the standards underlying LLM creativity evaluation and examining their downstream implications. Study 1 showed that LLMs generally relied on a narrower subset of human creativity evaluation standards. Convergence with human standards was strongest in the novelty dimension, whereas divergence was clearest in the contextual dimension, which captures social, market, and reputational information. Moreover, each LLM exhibited distinct, model-specific standards that varied substantially in breadth. These differences in evaluation standards were reflected in actual creativity judgments. Study 2 (N = 1,103 ideas) showed that LLM evaluations were moderately correlated with human evaluations, and individual LLMs with broader standards better distinguished ideas humans judged as more versus less creative. Study 3 (N = 1,195 participants) showed that LLMs were less sensitive to contextual information: such information significantly altered human creativity ratings but left LLM ratings largely unchanged. Together, our findings help explain the mixed evidence on LLM-human alignment, showing that alignment depends on the evidence a judgment demands and the standards each model applies. Selecting an LLM evaluator is therefore a consequential decision: different models, applying different standards, recognise different ideas as creative.

Abstract

Computational Creativity

Explore similar work

Why Large Language Models and Humans Converge and Diverge in Evaluating Creativity

The Limits of Automatic Evaluation of Creativity in Large Language Models

Interpretable Stylistic Variation in Human and LLM Writing Across Genres, Models, and Decoding Strategies