Gionnieve Lim,Simon T. Perrault
Abstract:Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) can rapidly produce large and diverse volumes of content. This lends to it a quality of creativity which can be empowering in the early stages of design. In seeking to understand how creative ways to address practical issues can be conceived between humans and GenAI, we conducted a rapid ideation workshop with 21 participants where they used a large language model (LLM) to brainstorm potential solutions and evaluate them. We found that the LLM produced a greater variety of ideas that were of high quality, though not necessarily of higher quality than human-generated ideas. Participants typically prompted in a straightforward manner with concise instructions. We also observed two collaborative dynamics with the LLM fulfilling a consulting role or an assisting role depending on the goals of the users. Notably, we observed an atypical anti-collaboration dynamic where participants used an antagonistic approach to prompt the LLM.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
This paper explores the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in creative generation and human collaboration, particularly the process of rapid ideation using large language models (LLM), such as ChatGPT. The study conducted a workshop in which 21 participants used LLM for brainstorming and problem-solving, assessing the quality and uniqueness of these ideas.
The research found that compared to human-generated ideas, LLM was able to generate more diverse and high-quality ideas, but not necessarily superior to humans. Participants typically made concise and straightforward requests to LLM. In human-machine collaboration, two roles were observed: consultation and assistance, as well as a non-typical adversarial dynamic where participants attempted to guide LLM in an opposing manner.
The paper analyzed the generated ideas and prompts, indicating that LLM could provide more unique ideas during the rapid ideation process, but the quality varied based on subjective evaluation. Additionally, participants interacted with LLM through direct requests, guiding creative directions, seeking explanations, or summaries. Some participants even adopted aggressive prompting strategies towards LLM.
The study discussed the potential value of LLM in rapid ideation, such as enhancing the innovation process, but also highlighted possible limitations, such as idea saturation and the use of LLM as a creative evaluation tool. Furthermore, the paper mentioned considerations for prompt strategies, such as providing high-quality templates for efficiency and attending to different modes of human-machine collaboration, including an uncommon anti-collaborative behavior.
Overall, this research expands our understanding of how LLM assists humans in creative tasks and the mechanisms of human-machine collaboration, providing new perspectives for future research, including potential anti-collaborative dynamics and the role of LLM in creative evaluation.