Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research identifies a critical limitation in current LLM alignment strategies, where the drive for factual accuracy suppresses the constructive ambiguity essential for literary creativity. By quantifying the "uncertainty gap" across 28 models, the study demonstrates that instruction-tuned systems often produce less creative outputs than their base counterparts, suggesting that future alignment paradigms must better distinguish between harmful hallucinations and necessary narrative uncertainty.
Sources coveringarXiv, LessWrong
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

LLMs Exhibit Significantly Lower Uncertainty in Creative Writing Than Professional Writers

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2602.16162v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We argue that uncertainty is a key and understudied limitation of LLMs' performance in creative writing, which is often characterized as trite and clich\'e-ridden. Literary theory identifies uncertainty as a necessary condition for creative expression, while current alignment strategies steer models away from uncertain outputs to ensure factuality and reduce hallucination. We formalize this tension by quantifying the ``uncertainty gap'' between human-authored stories and model-generated continuations. Through a controlled information-theoretic analysis of 28 LLMs on high-quality storytelling datasets, we demonstrate that human writing consistently exhibits significantly higher uncertainty than model outputs. We find that instruction-tuned and reasoning models exacerbate this trend compared to their base counterparts; furthermore, the gap is more pronounced in creative writing than in functional domains, and shows a consistent correlation with writing quality. Achieving human-level creativity requires new uncertainty-aware alignment paradigms that can distinguish between destructive hallucinations and the constructive ambiguity required for literary richness.

Abstract:We argue that uncertainty is a key and understudied limitation of LLMs' performance in creative writing, which is often characterized as trite and cliché-ridden. Literary theory identifies uncertainty as a necessary condition for creative expression, while current alignment strategies steer models away from uncertain outputs to ensure factuality and reduce hallucination. We formalize this tension by quantifying the ``uncertainty gap'' between human-authored stories and model-generated continuations. Through a controlled information-theoretic analysis of 28 LLMs on high-quality storytelling datasets, we demonstrate that human writing consistently exhibits significantly higher uncertainty than model outputs. We find that instruction-tuned and reasoning models exacerbate this trend compared to their base counterparts; furthermore, the gap is more pronounced in creative writing than in functional domains, and shows a consistent correlation with writing quality. Achieving human-level creativity requires new uncertainty-aware alignment paradigms that can distinguish between destructive hallucinations and the constructive ambiguity required for literary richness.

COLM2026 Camera Ready. 33 pages, 1 figures, 20 tables

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2602.16162 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2602.16162v2 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.16162 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 251 words

Related coverage