ArticleScientific reports2024
Humans create more novelty than ChatGPT when asked to retell a story.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Large Language Models as Tools, Models, and Partners in Creative Thinking Research: A Selective Narrative Review with the GCA Framework.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Review
- Evaluating AI performance in nephrology triage and subspecialty referrals.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Redefining Cognitive Domains in the Era of ChatGPT: A Comprehensive Analysis of Artificial Intelligence's Influence and Future Implications.Medical research archives · 2024Article
- AI-driven translations for kidney transplant equity in Hispanic populations.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compare how humans retell stories to how ChatGPT retells stories in chains of three retellings by different people or different accounts on ChatGPT. ChatGPT provides competent summaries of the original narrative texts in one step of retelling. In subsequent retellings few additional changes occur. Human retellers, by contrast, reduce the original text incrementally and by creating 55-60% of novel words and concepts (synsets) at each iteration. The retellings by both ChatGPT and humans show very stable emotion ratings, which is a puzzle for human retellers given the high degree of novel inventions across retellings. ChatGPT maintains more nouns, adjectives, and prepositions and also uses language later acquired in life, while humans use more verbs, adverbs, and negations and use language acquired at a younger age. The results reveal that spontaneous retelling by humans involves ongoing creativity, anchored by emotions, beyond the default probabilistic wording of large language models such as ChatGPT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.