Did any of the AI models demonstrate creativity? Why or why not? 

To me, being creative means more than producing an interesting and/or rhythmic product. It is coming up with something unique, purposeful, and genuine. something that conveys a certain message or experience. Based on our discussions in class, I would say that creativity revolves around two key elements, uniqueness and significance. It must be distinctive, but at the same time, it must have some meaning or connection to other people. 

Example  

On Maple Street, past the cracked old sign,  

Lived a kid named Jake in ‘09.  

 He rode his bike past Miller’s store,  

 Where the bell still rings on the squeaky door.  

 His mom yelled, “Dinner!” at half past six,  

 Same as always; meatloaf, potatoes, and Fix.  

 That’s the soda his dad always drank on ice,  

 Said, “Not too warm and not too nice.”)  

 The bus came early on cold fall days,  

 With fog on the windows and sleepy haze.  

 Ms. Carter would greet with a nod and a grin,  

 “Find your seat, let the learning begin.” 

Our group told AI(Chatgpt)  to make a poem that sounds like it was written by Dr. Seuss, and at first I thought it would either mess it up or go full cliché with random rhymes, but it actually surprised me, not because it sounded like Dr. Seuss (it didn’t), but because it felt more emotional and reflective. The poem is creative on the surface since it uses rhyme, clear imagery, and tells a small story about this kid, Jake, and some lines, like “how quiet feels louder than noise or din,” feel genuinely thoughtful. But it doesn’t really match Dr. Seuss’s playful and imaginative style instead, it feels more calm and nostalgic, so it missed part of the prompt. This connects to what we talked about in class, AI doesn’t truly “create,” it just mixes patterns it has already seen, which is why the poem feels meaningful but is probably built from familiar ideas like childhood memories. So is it creative? Kind of but not in a human way. It shows functional creativity by making something new and clear, but not intentional creativity, since it doesn’t actually understand what it’s saying it just produces something that sounds meaningful. This assignment changed how I see AI a bit because I used to think it wouldn’t be creative at all, but now I see it can come close still, there’s something missing, since real creativity comes from personal experience and intention, which AI doesn’t have. 

At the beginning, my group’s prompt felt simple enough, but I had a feeling the response would miss the point. We typed in “create a poem like it was written by Dr. Seuss” and the response came back technically correct but immediately felt off. It hit the rhyme scheme and kept a steady meter, but it wasn’t the kind of poem that would actually make you feel like you were reading Seuss.

The output that stood out to me was this: “On Maple Street, past the cracked old sign, Lived a kid named Jake in ’09. He rode his bike past Miller’s store, Where the bell still rings on the squeaky door.”

The words rhyme but the reason that I took this part for this answer was not based on its similarities to Seuss but rather its differences. Seuss made up words. He created imaginary creatures with funny-sounding names such as the Lorax and the Sneetches and crafted entire universes from the language itself. This poem sounds like someone who had been told how to describe Dr. Seuss and tried to be him without having any true idea of his style at all.

This connects to something from the Freethink article that stuck with me. The article argues that while AI can find patterns and help explore problems in creative ways, it lacks the human ability to grasp multiple, often competing ideas and shape them into something remarkable (Bhatia, 2025). This is exactly the element missing in the creation made by the LLM. He was blending absurdist humor, social commentary, and invented language all at once.

Growing up, I loved building with Legos freestyle — not from the instructions, but using whatever pieces I had to figure something out on my own. That is still how I understand creativity. Creativity involves not only making something that is novel and unique, but also the intent and thought process that go into creating such a thing. However, I could not say that was reflected at all in this poem. AI might prove to be helpful in terms of coming up with content ideas, but nothing else.

Overall, this experiment confirmed what I already believed, LLMs are impressive at recognizing and reproducing patterns, but creativity is what happens when a person brings something personal and intentional to the work (Bhatia, 2025).

Bhatia, A. (2025). The artifact isn’t the art: Rethinking creativity in the age of AI. Freethink. https://www.freethink.com/opinion/studio-ghibli-chatgpt-creativity

I think creativity is the uniquely human ability to come up with ideas/solutions formed through their unique lived experiences. Cause of that, I do think you can become “more” creative – through trying new things, and meeting people different from you.
For the experiment, I used Google Gemini. I don’t think its response was particularly creative. I asked it to write a poem in the style of Frank Ocean, a music artist. Here’s what it gave me:

“The streetlights bleed orange through the tinted glass. We are moving too fast to read the signs, just letting the city blur into something soft. You smell like chlorine and wet concrete, a suburban summer caught in your bleached hair.

I think about the way you looked at the deep end, half afraid to jump but wanting the water to swallow you. Now the radio is playing a song we do not know the words to, humming low under the sound of the engine.

White sneakers resting on the dashboard, counting miles like they are loose change in a pocket. You ask me if the world feels different at night. I just keep my hands on the wheel, watching the taillights ahead fade into the dark.

We loved each other in the spaces between the quiet. A fleeting kind of gold, slipping through my fingers before the sun even tried to rise.”

Although I could see the inspiration it used to draft what I asked, it still felt uninspired. Frank talks a lot about his environment and tries to use metaphors for how he feels in his music, but something like the last sentence just isn’t what a song of his would sound like. Also, no contractions (“We are moving” – sounds unnatural) or any colloquial language also shows LLMs’ current lack of being able to copy and artist’s entire style (which is probably for the better of art).

Alan Turing’s quote from the slides: “A computer would deserve to be called intelligent if it could deceive a human into believing that it was human.” resonates with me in this example. I think no one would be able to be convinced that a human wrote these lyrics.

I think our experiments this week definitely showed me more of the limitations of AI when it comes to the creative sphere. I mostly use AI for other kinds of computing, so it is interesting to think about its role in shaping entertainment and art as we know it (right now).

There are many ways a person may describe the word “Creativity”. I would describe it as – Being able to produce a unique piece of art that holds value. I think having creativity is very important to everyone’s life. Creativity can define you as a person and help you figure out who you want to be. My definition says “unique piece of art”, which could mean anything. A piece of art could be from making a painting all the way to running a route in football.

I was in group 5 and I used the prompt “Create a poem using the style of the music artist Baby Keem”. The results that I received did not surprise me at all.

Two-door coupe, yeah, I’m out the way,

I don’t do the drama, I don’t do the play.

(No, no)

High-speed chase with the toddler energy,

I’m my own cousin, I’m my own remedy.

Hykeem! ### The Protocol

• Phone ring? Ignore it. * The beat? I floor it. * New boots? I wore it. * The fake? Abhor it. —

I’m the range brother, I’m the 2-phone king,

Check the frequency, check the way I swing.

I might jump out the porch, I might jump out the gym,

The lights get low and the world gets dim.

“Top of the morning, top of the morning, top of the morning.”

I’m evolving,

Problem solving,

The globe is revolving,

My ego is dissolving…

Wait. I’m back in the booth, I’m the truth, I’m the youth,

I just chipped a diamond on my front tooth.

(Ayy, ayy, ayy)

I’m cool,

I’m calm,

I’m the bomb,

Ask your mom.

Vent.

This response is not creative at all. Baby Keem is nicknamed “2-phone king” so AI making a rhyme of it just isn’t creative. It also isn’t creative for AI to go, “I’m cool, I’m calm, I’m the bomb, ask your mom”. These are just simple words put together to make it seem like it is Baby Keem writing it.

Overall, This made me rethink how AI is extremely uncreative. It drives itself to be in the rulebook and not think outside of the box or be original. This project helped me realize that LLM’s are not able to produce a unique piece of art that holds value. Which in my understanding is the definition of creativity.

Sources:

Google Gemini. Gemini. https://gemini.google.com/app/9042412a074caa57

In class on Tuesday, my group researched Serbia and its connections with AI while carefully examining what artificial intelligence is like in foreign countries. During class, we put a lot of emphasis on creativity and what it’s defined as. With Ai, it’s a hard topic to cover, everyone’s definition is different. After researching and reading Arriagada and Ais role in creativity, we came upon the definition of “Peoples generalized perception of creativity often involves the idea of inspiration, a mysterious muse that comes to the creators aid, an insightful burst of imagination.” After this and our class discussion on creativity, we were tasked to be experimenting with an LLM. We told our AI machine to write a poem like Shakespeare would, then had the class guess which one was human and which one was AI. Obviously, this is very difficult as some cannot tell the differences in what AI is human or if it isn’t. The poem our LLM came up with was a built off, more enhanced version of an older poem written by Shakespeare.

Example: Good morrow, sun, thou golden ball so bright,​

That peeks above the hills with merry cheer;​

I greet thee now with laughter and delight,​

And chase my dreams as thou dost draw me near.​

Mine wooden sword, a kingly blade I claim,​

I battle beasts no grown-up eye can see;​

A cardboard crown doth grant me noble name,​

And in my yard I rule a realm most free.​

When lessons call, I sigh yet still obey,​

For wisdom grows as seeds in fertile ground;​

Yet soon enough I’m loosed again to play,​

Where joys untold in simple things are found.​

So let me dream ‘fore sleep doth close mine eyes,​

A child today, tomorrow wondrous wise.​

Other Example: Let me not to the marriage of true minds​

Admit impediments; love is not love​

Which alters when it alteration finds,​

Or bends with the remover to remove:​

O, no, it is an ever-fixèd mark,​

That looks on tempests and is never shaken;​

It is the star to every wand’ring bark,​

Whose worth’s unknown, although his heighth be taken.​

Love’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks​

Within his bending sickle’s compass come;​

Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,​

But bears it out even to the edge of doom.​

If this be error and upon me proved,​

I never writ, nor no man ever loved.​

These models demonstrated creativity by forming and building off human work in how creativity is defined by researchers. I believe the models are creative because the whole point of Ai itself is to be creative. Being a creative individual means that I use Ai in a way to broaden the spectrum of work. I like to use it to bring ideas to my mind along with letting it show what needs to get done. This is important, as AI allows for creativity at the hands of anything. Ask it any question, and it will deliver a very creative answer. I don’t see any risks to this in the form of a work context; all I find are benefits. The only risk I can think of is when ChatGPT does not properly upload correct information, instead keeping bias within answers. Overall, I think creativity is a fine definition for AI and solves what’s trying to get done pretty well.

Sources: OpenAI. (n.d.). ChatGPT. Retrieved April 9, 2026, from https://chatgpt.com/

Based on Tuesday’s readings, we talked about how creativity can be described as both “novelty and usefulness.” I personally do not agree with this definition of creativity because there is no standard metric by which we can define usefulness nor novelty (to some extent). When I think of creativity, I think of “a personal touch, meaning that is deeply personal and authenticity.” After today’s discussion with the CS professors, I began to reflect more on how creativity is not always about one’s self, because we are often inspired by others and that in itself can spur bursts of creativity.

My group’s chosen poet was Dr. Seuss and one of our prompts to ChatGPT was to” use the settings and era from which Dr. Seuss was from, Dr. Seuss’s life story /background, audience, rhythm, rhyme scheme, etc., to write a poem.” We got the following output to our prompt:

On Maple Street, past the cracked old sign,​

Lived a kid named Jake in ‘09.​

He rode his bike past Miller’s store,​

Where the bell still rings on the squeaky door.​

His mom yelled, “Dinner!” at half past six,​

Same as always; meatloaf, potatoes, and Fix.​

(That’s the soda his dad always drank on ice,​

Said, “Not too warm and not too nice.”)​

The bus came early on cold fall days,​

With fog on the windows and sleepy haze.​

Ms. Carter would greet with a nod and a grin,……

​In my opinion, this output from ChatGPT was not creative, but it had some interesting characteristics. For example, the entirety of the poem rhymed and there was also good imagery throughout. However, it seemed very generic and inauthentic. The writing seemed like words that were put together based on their ability to rhyme and it lacked that personal touch connected to one’s own deeply meaningful story.

Nevertheless, this was not very surprising as AI produces output based on the millions of data it’s been trained on, and so the output it provides is not original and is instead based on the datasets and the probability of the next token approach that LLMs in this case use. For example, in our reading from Tuesday, Ashish Bhatia spoke about how creativity is traditionally defined as something that demonstrates both novelty and usefulness (Bhatia, 2025). And so although this poem might be classified as useful, it cannot necessarily be classified as novel because it is not authentic and it’s based on preexisting data and information. In the same reading we saw how psychologist, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi talked about how AI doesn’t labor through ambiguity nor does it explore. This is exemplified in the ChatGPT poem, as it is very generic and lacks fluidity.

Overall, our experiments this week shifted my thinking about creativity and AI and made me more aware of the limitations AI has in terms of creativity, and how AI though useful in a huge range of scenarios, is not as well-versed when it comes to creative work. However, AI models are constantly evolving and being trained and so that might change.

Source: Bhatia, A. (2025, April 4). The artifact isn’t the art: Rethinking creativity in the age of AI. Freethink; Freethink Media. https://www.freethink.com/opinion/studio-ghibli-chatgpt-creativity?utm_source=tldrai