Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/305744 
Year of Publication: 
2024
Series/Report no.: 
IZA Discussion Papers No. 17302
Publisher: 
Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn
Abstract: 
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has made substantial progress, but its full capabilities remain unclear, and we still lack a comprehensive understanding of how people augment productivity with AI and perceive AI-generated outputs. This study compares the ability of AI to a representative population of US adults in creative and strategic tasks. The creative ideas produced by AI chatbots are rated more creative than those created by humans. Moreover, ChatGPT is substantially more creative than humans, while Bard lags behind. Augmenting humans with AI improves human creativity, albeit not as much as ideas created by ChatGPT alone. Competition from AI does not significantly reduce the creativity of men, but it decreases the creativity of women. Humans who rate the text cannot discriminate well between ideas created by AI or other humans but assign lower scores to the responses they believe to be AI-generated. As for strategic capabilities, while ChatGPT shows a clear ability to adjust its moves in a strategic game to the play of the opponent, humans are, on average, more successful in this adaptation.
Subjects: 
creativity
ChatGPT
artificial intelligence
strategic skill
experiment
algorithm-aversion
JEL: 
I24
J24
D91
C90
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.