Are LLMs becoming similarly creative? Evidence from three years of models

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in language understanding, reasoning, and generation, sparking growing interest in their creative potential. Realizing this potential requires systematic and scalable methods for evaluating creativity across diverse tasks. However, most existing creativity metrics are tightly coupled to specific tasks, embedding domain assumptions into the evaluation process, and limiting scalability and generality. To address this gap, we introduce an automated, domain-agnostic framework for quantifying LLM creativity across open-ended tasks. Our approach separates the measurement apparatus from the creative task itself, enabling scalable, task-agnostic assessment. Divergent creativity is measured using semantic entropy, a reference-free and robust metric for novelty and diversity, validated against human annotations, LLM-based novelty judgments and baseline diversity measures. Convergent creativity is assessed via a novel retrieval-based multi-agent judge framework that delivers context-sensitive evaluation of task fulfilment with over 60% improved efficiency. We validate our framework in three qualitatively distinct domains: problem-solving (MacGyver), research ideation (HypoGen), and creative writing (BookMIA), using a broad suite of LLMs. Empirical results show that our framework reliably captures key facets of creativity, including novelty, diversity, and task fulfilment, and reveal how model properties, such as size, temperature, recency, and reasoning, impact creative performance. Our work establishes a reproducible and generalizable standard for automated LLM creativity evaluation, paving the way for scalable benchmarking and accelerating progress in creative AI.

Divergent thinking is a crucial aspect of creativity, yet large language models (LLMs) tend to consistently generate similar responses to open-ended questions, in what has been termed the artificial hivemind effect. Here, we introduce CreativityNeuro, a data-free method for enhancing divergent thinking in LLMs via contrastive weight steering. We evaluate our method across multiple creativity assessments and report several main findings. On the Divergent Association Task (DAT), a vocabulary-space creativity test, CreativityNeuro improves performance by up to 14 human percentile points. Next, in a large-scale human evaluation (N=720) on the Alternative Uses Test (AUT) and the Task Task, CreativityNeuro achieves significant improvements in originality, surprise, and creativity, transferring to longer-form and more open-ended tasks. Importantly, we find that across all three tasks, CreativityNeuro demonstrably reduces measures of mode collapse. Moreover, activation steering achieves comparable performance to CreativityNeuro on the DAT, but it does not transfer to the AUT and Task Task, demonstrating the effectiveness of weight-space steering in generalizing to unseen tasks. In conclusion, CreativityNeuro improves divergent thinking and reduces mode collapse without requiring behavioral data, re-training, or gradient-based fine-tuning, providing a straightforward way to enhance LLM performance in creative domains.

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.