Shortly after artificial intelligence models including Midjourney and OpenAIā€™s Dall-E went public, AI-generated art started winning competitions: , . Concern rumbled that AI could replace artists ā€” and even, by some metrics, . But simultaneously, people were exploring these tools as ways to augment their creative processes, not replace them.

91±¬ĮĻ researchers grew curious about how AI might affect creativity in children, specifically, so they worked with a group of 12 Seattle-area kids ages seven to 13 to explore how the kidsā€™ creative processes interacted with AI tools. They found that for the kids to be able to integrate generative AI into their creative practices meaningfully, they often needed support from adults and peers.

The researchers presented May 14 at the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

91±¬ĮĻ News spoke with the studyā€™s lead author , a 91±¬ĮĻ doctoral student in the Information School, about the study, the importance of support and the particular creativity of kids.

What was the impetus for this research?

Michele Newman: Before coming to 91±¬ĮĻ, I was working on a ā€” AI, essentially ā€” to measure creativity in elementary school children. When ChatGPT came out, I was at the 91±¬ĮĻ working with , a program where adults and kids co-create technology products for children, and I really wanted to see what effects GPT might have on children’s creativity.

So much of the early experience around this new technology was fearful. People were saying, ā€œDon’t use it to teach, it’s going to harm kids.ā€ Many schools banned it. So part of the impetus of the project was trying to see what a medium stance looks like ā€” where it’s not harming or taking jobs. It’s supporting and building meaningful experiences for kids. How can we look to the future and build ethical and meaningful practices around this technology?

How did you go about designing the study? And why did you use those design considerations?

MN: In KidsTeam the primary methodology is , where kids are treated as equal partners when designing technologies. So one of our approaches was just putting the kids in front of technology ā€”Ā OpenAIā€™s ChatGPT and Dall-E, or Google’s music generator ā€” to see what they do. What are their considerations? Where are they getting frustrated? What does it mean to have a tool that can actually kind of do the creation for you? A lot of creativity research talks about how process is very important. That’s kind of where the personā€™s individuality comes out. So we wanted to see the kids develop their creative processes.

We also gave the kids a more structured experience. It’s one thing to just look at a piece of technology and say, ā€œHere’s what it can do.ā€ Itā€™s another thing to say, ā€œUse this specific software to write a story.ā€ In the sessions, we balanced the open-ended approach with more directed exploration and had kids use techniques like comic boarding, where they make comics about potential good and bad uses of AI.

What findings were the most interesting to you?

MN: Maybe the most important and practical finding is how clearly these systems are not built for children. The kids might know a lot about, say, a video game like . If the AI system doesnā€™t know anything about it, the kids might conclude theyā€™re smarter than the system. So thereā€™s a mismatch between what children are expecting these systems to be able to do and what they can do. This type of technology is generally built with adults in mind. Likewise, children’s language just isn’t the same as adults. Things like this really become an issue for kids trying to creatively express themselves.

The title of this paper is ā€œI want it to talk like Darth Vader,ā€ which is a quote from one of the kids. He was writing a story about Star Wars, and he turned to us and said, ā€œI want it to talk like Darth Vader. I want it to be able to be customized.ā€ He suggested that it would help him write a better Star Wars story. Obviously, you could prompt ChatGPT to talk like Darth Vader, and we helped walk him through that. But those aren’t things that the kids necessarily understand right away. They need extra instruction around that. Children’s creativity is unique. Because of their development and their experiences, they have different needs than adults do. They’re still building and understanding social norms, and what it means to create.

I was also fascinated by the kidsā€™ ethical considerations.

MN: Yeah, when we asked about some typical things like cheating, the kids tended to reiterate things theyā€™ve heard, that ā€œI shouldn’t use it to cheat.ā€ But when we asked them about things like whether their friend should use AI to write a birthday card for them, they started to have really nuanced takes. Some started asking how much the friend is using it. Is it to write the whole card, or just to help? Every kid starts to have different ideas. So then weā€™re considering how to foster an individual child’s expression.

We asked one 11-year-old how heā€™d feel if his favorite book series was written by AI instead of an author, and he said it would ā€œdismantleā€ the joy of reading for him. We often don’t think about kids having these deep, existential questions about what it means to be an artist. But they are. Theyā€™re asking whether they lose some authenticity when AI rather than a friend writes a birthday card. Over the course of the study, we saw them changing and developing as they used these systems. By the end, it was great to hear them saying things like, ā€œI don’t think this really expresses what I’m saying.ā€

But they started making certain types of adjustments to their creative process and their goals, which for me sometimes raised a red flag. Sometimes theyā€™d add extra context to get it to do what they wanted. But other times they might try an idea and quickly say, ā€œIt’s not working, so I’m just going to change the idea.ā€ Thatā€™s a hard problem. But we can’t just make systems that solve all these issues, because every kidā€™s process is different. Sometimes you do need to learn to give up on an idea. That can be part of the creative process. So the question with AI is how do you support kids and give them knowledge of their individual creative processes? Creativity is always happening in a larger context. The interaction is not just about inputting a prompt. Itā€™s working iteratively with the system while being supported by peers and adults. And those networks of support make a meaningful experience with these systems much more likely.

Additional co-authors on this paper were , a professor in the iSchool; , an associate professor in the iSchool; , an undergraduate in the iSchool; , and , undergraduates in human centered design and engineering at the 91±¬ĮĻ; , an undergraduate in the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering; , who completed this research as an undergraduate in interaction design and psychology at the 91±¬ĮĻ; and , a doctoral student at the University of Michigan. This research was funded in part by the U.S. Institute for Museum and Library Services.

For more information, contact mmn13@uw.edu.

Fans of the “” video game series were so excited for the release of the most recent game, “” on May 12 that many used sick leave or vacation time to schedule uninterrupted time for exploring.

“Tears of the Kingdom” players control Zelda’s protagonist as he navigates the world of Hyrule a few years after the previous Zelda game, “Breath of the Wild.”

91±¬ĮĻ News sat down with , a 91±¬ĮĻ doctoral student in the Information School, to learn more about fans’ dedication to this new game. Newman studies video game communities to try to understand how video games shape our society.

How does “Tears of the Kingdom” compare with other Zelda games?

Michele Newman: The original Zelda game started with giving you a sword and saying, “Go for it. Go figure out what to do next.” But then the next Zelda games started developing a narrative approach: “Go find specific dungeons. Follow this storyline.” Over time, the general perception around these games has been that they are either too strong on the story side or too strong on the open world side. “Tears of the Kingdom” really balances these two things. You’re exploring, but what you do has an impact on the world.

It’s a really big development challenge to balance the open world where you allow players agency but you also give them a story to follow.

Another interesting thing about “Tears of the Kingdom” is that it is set in the same “world” as “Breath of the Wild,” but time seems to have passed between the two. Can you talk about that?

MN: It’s not very common for the Zelda developers to make a direct sequel. For “Tears of the Kingdom,” it’s the same iteration of Link. But it’s a different story from “Breath of the Wild.” We think it’s been like three to five years between the two games. And there are some big differences. You kind of have to suspend your disbelief a little bit, because otherwise it’s like, “Wait, what? Where are all the shrines from ‘Breath of the Wild’?”

Here the developers have really chosen to think about how the world has changed between the two games. How has Link’s environment changed? How does he interact now with ? Many of them don’t recognize him. Which kind of makes sense because if you met one random guy who did something weird once like three to five years ago, would you really remember them either? Probably not.

I think this is something that a lot of games have historically not been very good at. In many games, you do a quest and then you’re done, right? No one is talking to you about how that’s affected their lives.

Here, there is a big change between the two games. There are people here now. They’re rebuilding. There are new settlements. It’s a really unique way to think about what it means for the world and how you interact with it in the game.

About three to five years have passed between “Tears of the Kingdom” and the previous game, “Breath of the Wild.” Move the cursor from left to right to see Zelda protagonist Link standing outside the Shrine of Resurrection in both games. The screenshot on the left is from “Tears of the Kingdom,” and the screenshot on the right is from “Breath of the Wild.” Screenshots are courtesy of Newman.

You call yourself a “Zelda Boomer.” Can you talk about how these games have affected you personally?

MN: I have been playing Zelda games since I was a child. I call myself a “Zelda Boomer” because there are things I really like about the early games. I really like the old-style dungeons, with dungeon items and locked rooms. “Breath of the Wild” kind of moved away from that. “Tears of the Kingdom” seems like an attempt to balance it a bit more, though not a full return to that traditional format.

These games are what made me call myself a gamer. They have had a really personal, profound impact on who I am. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

What makes the Zelda series so unique?

MN: For any game, it’s a balance of developers wanting to create something and how much the fans are willing to engage in that. But then there’s an interesting intersection of that with how much developers are willing to take the fans’ ideas and run with them. When this happens, it’s an example of a healthy reciprocal relationship between developers and fans, and that’s one reason why this game is so successful.

“Tears of the Kingdom” is a game that was made for fans. The developers and the fans are collectively wanting to experience something and working collaboratively to do that. And that’s been the most exciting thing here ā€” seeing how developers support Zelda fans.

Sometimes, it seems like the developers like to throw a wrench in fans’ plans, like, “Oh you think you’ve got this timeline figured out? Ha!” That’s one really fun thing that these games do really well, because that’s not always the case. There are definitely games where the developers are like, “This is how it happens.” But the spirit of Zelda has always been that the player is the driving force. It started with that original idea: I hand you a sword. You figure it out.

For more information, contact Newman at mmn13@uw.edu.