Abstracts
Abstract
Generative AI appears to threaten argument creativity. Because of its capacity to generate coherent texts, individuals are likely to integrate its ideas, and not their own, into arguments, thereby reducing their creative contribution. This article argues that this view is mistaken—it rests on a misunderstanding of the nature of creativity. Within arguments, creative and critical thinking cannot be separated. Because creativity is enmeshed with skills such as analysis and evaluation, the use of generative AI in the construction of arguments, especially in the role as universal audience, has the potential to heighten, not diminish argument creativity.
Keywords:
- arguments,
- creativity,
- generative AI,
- universal audience
Résumé
L’IA générative semble menacer la créativité argumentative. En raison de sa capacité à générer des textes cohérents, les individus sont susceptibles d’intégrer ses idées, et non les leurs, dans les arguments, réduisant ainsi leur contribution créative. Cet article soutient que cette vision est erronée. Cela repose sur une mauvaise compréhension de la nature de la créativité. Au sein des arguments, la pensée créative et la pensée critique ne peuvent être séparées. Puisque la créativité est étroitement liée à des compétences telles que l’analyse et l’évaluation, l’utilisation de l’IA générative dans la construction d’arguments, en particulier dans le rôle d’auditoire universel, a le potentiel d’augmenter, et non de diminuer, la créativité argumentative.
Appendices
Bibliography
- Allegany County Historical Society. n.d. Genealogies K-L. Latta "Family" - Inventions of Emmit G. Latta. (n.d.). URL accessed 20 Au-gust 2023: <https://www.alleganyhistory.org/index.php/research/genealogy/k-l/1272-latta-qfamilyq?start=1>.
- Autodesk. n.d. Generative design. URL accessed 18 August 2023: <https://www.autodesk.com/solutions/generative-design>.
- Bailin, S. 1987. Critical and creative thinking. Informal Logic 9(1): 23-30.
- Baumtrog, M. 2017. Others and imagination in reasoning and argumentation: Improving our critical creative capacity. Informal Logic 37(2): 129-151.
- Boden, M. 1994. What is creativity? In Dimensions of creativity, ed. M. Boden, 75–117. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. <https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2437.003.0006>.
- Boden, M. 1998. Creativity and artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 103(1–2): 347–356. <https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(98)00055-1>.
- Boden, M. 2004. The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms, second edition. Routledge. <https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203508527>.
- Boden, M. 2009. Computer models of creativity. AI Magazine 30(3): 23-34.
- Brown, T. B., B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sadtry, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert-Voss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A. Ramesh, D. M. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Winter . . . D. Amodei. 2020. Language mod-els are few shot learners. URL: <arXiv:2005.14165v4>.
- Changebike. 2020, December 18. The history of the folding bike. URL accessed 16 July 2023: <https://changebike.co.uk/blogs/news/2020-updated-the-history-of-the-folding-bike-change-bike#:~:text=Bicycles%2C%20in%20their%20regular%20form,of%20the%20first%20folding%20bike>.
- Eemeren, F. H. van. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Gaut, B. 2018. The value of creativity, in Creativity and philosophy, eds. B. Gaut and M. Gaut, 124-139. New York: Routledge. <https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351199797>.
- Girotra, Karan, Lennart Meincke, Christian Terwiesch, and Karl T. Ulrich. 2023, July 10. Ideas are dimes a dozen: Large language models for idea generation in innovation. Accessed from SSRN: <http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4526071>.
- Johnson, R. 2000. Manifest rationality. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Johnson, R. 2013. The role of audience in argumentation from the perspective of informal logic. Philosophy & Rhetoric 46(4): 533-349.
- Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
- Kronfeldner, M. 2009. Creativity naturalized. The Philosophical Quarterly 59(237): 577–592. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2009.637.x
- Laughlin, P. R. and A. B. Hollingshead. 1995. A Theory of collective induction. Organizational behavior and human decision processes 61(1): 94–107. <https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1008>.
- Ouyang et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Available at: <arXiv:2203.02155>.
- Page, S. E. 2008. The difference. Princeton University Press.
- Paul, E. and D. Stokes. 2023. Creativity. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (spring 2023 edition), eds. Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman. URL accessed 25 July 2023: <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/creativity/>.
- Perelman, C. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric, trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
- Phillips, K. W. 2014, October 1. How diversity makes us smarter. Scientific American. URL accessed 18 February 2024: <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/>.
- Phillips, K. W. and D. L. Loyd. 2006. When surface and deep-level diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99(2): 143–160. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.12.001>.
- Sunstein, C. R. 2009. Going to extremes. Oxford University Press.
- Sunstein, C. R. and R. Hastie. 2008. Four failures of deliberating groups. SSRN Electronic Journal. <https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1121400>.
- Tindale, C. W. 1999. Acts of arguing: A rhetorical model of argument. Albany: State University of New York.
- Tindale, C. W. 2013. Rhetorical argumentation and the nature of audience: Toward and understanding audience – issues in argumentation. Philosophy & Rhetoric 46(4): 508-532.
- Wolfram, S. 2023, February 14. What is ChatGPT doing … and why does it work? URL accessed 24 February 2024: <https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/>.
- Woolley, A. W., C. F. Chabris, A. Pentland, N. Hashmi and T. W. Malone. 2010, October 29. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330(6004): 686–688. <https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147>.