M.B.A. Students vs. ChatGPT: Who Comes Up With More Innovative Ideas?

How good is AI in generating new ideas?

The conventional wisdom has been not very good. Identifying opportunities for new ventures, generating a solution for an unmet need, or naming a new company are unstructured tasks that seem ill-suited for algorithms. Yet recent advances in AI, and specifically the advent of large language models like ChatGPT, are challenging these assumptions.

We have taught innovation, entrepreneurship and product design for many years. For the first assignment in our innovation courses at the Wharton School, we ask students to generate a dozen or so ideas for a new product or service. As a result, we have heard several thousand new venture ideas pitched by undergraduate students, M.B.A. students and seasoned executives. Some of these ideas are awesome, some are awful, and, as you would expect, most are somewhere in the middle.

The library of ideas, though, allowed us to set up a simple competition to judge who is better at generating innovative ideas: the human or the machine.

In this competition, which we ran together with our colleagues Lennart Meincke and Karan Girotra, humanity was represented by a pool of 200 randomly selected ideas from our Wharton students. The machines were represented by ChatGPT4, which we instructed to generate 100 ideas with otherwise identical instructions as given to the students: “generate an idea for a new product or service appealing to college students that could be made available for $50 or less.”

In addition to this vanilla prompt, we also asked ChatGPT for another 100 ideas after providing a handful of examples of successful ideas from past courses (in other words, a trained GPT group), providing us with a total sample of 400 ideas.

Collapsible laundry hamper, dorm-room chef kit, ergonomic cushion for hard classroom seats, and hundreds more ideas miraculously spewed from a laptop.

How to compare

The academic literature on ideation postulates three dimensions of creative performance: the quantity of ideas, the average quality of ideas, and the number of truly exceptional ideas.

First, on the number of ideas per unit of time: Not surprisingly, ChatGPT easily outperforms us humans on that dimension. Generating 200 ideas the old-fashioned way requires days of human work, while ChatGPT can spit out 200 ideas with about an hour of supervision.

Next, to assess the quality of the ideas, we market tested them. Specifically, we took each of the 400 ideas and put them in front of a survey panel of customers in the target market via an online purchase-intent survey. The question we asked was: “How likely would you be to purchase based on this concept if it were available to you?” The possible responses ranged from definitely wouldn’t purchase to definitely would purchase.

The responses can be translated into a purchase probability using simple market-research techniques. The average purchase probability of a human-generated idea was 40%, that of vanilla GPT-4 was 47%, and that of GPT-4 seeded with good ideas was 49%. In short, ChatGPT isn’t only faster but also on average better at idea generation.

Still, when you’re looking for great ideas, averages can be misleading. In innovation, it’s the exceptional ideas that matter: Most managers would prefer one idea that is brilliant and nine ideas that are flops over 10 decent ideas, even if the average quality of the latter option might be higher. To capture this perspective, we investigated only the subset of the best ideas in our pool—specifically the top 10%. Of these 40 ideas, five were generated by students and 35 were created by ChatGPT (15 from the vanilla ChatGPT set and 20 from the pre trained ChatGPT set). Once again, ChatGPT came out on top.

What it means

We believe that the 35-to-5 victory of the machine in generating exceptional ideas (not to mention the dramatically lower production costs) has substantial implications for how we think about creativity and innovation.

First, generative AI has brought a new source of ideas to the world. Not using this source would be a sin. It doesn’t matter if you are working on a pitch for your local business-plan competition or if you are seeking a cure for cancer—every innovator should develop the habit of complementing his or her own ideas with the ones created by technology. Ideation will always have an element of randomness to it, and so we cannot guarantee that your idea will get an A+, but there is no excuse left if you get a C.

Second, the bottleneck for the early phases of the innovation process in organisations now shifts from generating ideas to evaluating ideas. Using a large language model, an innovator can produce a spreadsheet articulating hundreds of ideas, which likely include a few blockbusters. This abundance then demands an effective selection mechanism to find the needles in the haystack.

To date, these models appear to perform no better than any single expert in their ability to predict commercial viability. Using a sample of a dozen or so independent evaluations from potential customers in the target market—a wisdom of crowds approach—remains the best strategy. Fortunately, screening ideas using a purchase intent survey of customers in the target market is relatively fast and cheap.

Finally, rather than thinking about a competition between humans and machines, we should find a way in which the two work together. This approach in which AI takes on the role of a co-pilot has already emerged in software development. For example, our human (pilot) innovator might identify an open problem. The AI (co-pilot) might then report what is known about the problem, followed by an effort in which the human and AI independently explore possible solutions, virtually guaranteeing a thorough consideration of opportunities.

The human decision maker is likely ultimately responsible for the outcome, and so will likely make the screening and selection decisions, informed by customer research and possibly by the opinion of the AI co-pilot. We predict such a human-machine collaboration will deliver better products and services to the market, and improved solutions for whatever society needs in the future.

Christian Terwiesch and Karl Ulrich are professors of operations, information and decisions at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, where Terwiesch also co-directs the Mack Institute for Innovation Management.

Happy is the family whose members—parents, grandparents and grown children—trust each other enough to cooperate on shared goals, especially financial ones. When that is truly the case, Uncle Sam’s tax rules can help as well.

This matters especially now that mortgage rates are above 7%, and many families are looking for ways to help younger members. If the elders have resources and are confident younger ones can cooperate, a family loan could make homeownership possible while providing the elders with a useful income stream.

Other strategies can actually lower taxes, such as when funding 529 plans or Roth IRAs, or when someone inherits a traditional IRA with required withdrawals larger than they will need.

Here are three strategies useful for functional families.

Intrafamily loans

It is perfectly legal for families to lend money to a relative for a down payment or even a private mortgage.

But it is important not to cut corners, says Ryan McKeown, a CPA with Modern Wealth Enhancement in Minnesota. If the loan is for a down payment, be honest with the mortgage provider and have a formal agreement. The lender owes tax on the interest payments received.

If the loan is for a private mortgage, both sides should have legal representation with a formal written agreement, including payment terms. The lender owes tax on the interest, and the borrower often can deduct it if he or she itemizes.

To avoid IRS trouble, the interest rate shouldn’t be lower than the agency’s Applicable Federal Rate at the time of the loan. Currently that is about 5% for loans longer than nine years; about 4.5% for loans three to nine years; and about 4% for loans three years or less. Currently, traditional mortgage rates are generally above 7%.

In addition, the lender could use the $19,000 annual gift-tax exemption (described below) to forgive some or all of the interest or principal annually. If both lenders and borrowers are married, that is up to $76,000 a year. There is no tax for the borrower on such forgiveness, because it is from a gift.

If you’re going this route, McKeown advises against having a fixed plan to forgive the debt. Instead, do it in one-off letters specifying the amount—and keep careful records. Otherwise the IRS might try to treat the loan as a taxable gift.

Asset gifts

Powerful tax-saving moves for families often use gift-tax provisions. Under current law, anyone can give anyone else up to $19,000 of assets annually, free of gift tax. That means a married couple with three grandchildren could give them a total of $114,000 in 2026.

The gifts can be cash or other assets, like stock. For noncash gifts, the cost basis—which is the starting point for measuring taxable gain after a sale—“carries over” to the recipient. So if someone buys $1,000 of stock and gives it away when it is worth $5,000, the recipient’s cost basis is $1,000. If the recipient later sells the shares for $8,000, the taxable gain is $7,000.

Here’s an example showing how gifts could save a family taxes. Grandma is a widow of modest means, while her child and spouse have prospered. The couple has two children, and they want to contribute $5,000 to a 529 college-savings plan for each—but they need to sell stock to do it. Their tax rate on the sale would be 18.8%, and they would need to sell about $11,000 of stock.

However, Grandma’s federal tax rate on the stock sale is 0%. If the couple gives $10,000 of shares to Grandma, she could sell them, pay no tax, and fund the grandchildren’s 529 plans. This saves about $1,000 of tax.

These moves are legal, and they could be used in other ways, such as to help a young person fund a Roth IRA.

But trust among family members is essential: Under the law, givers can’t put conditions on a gift. Grandma could use her stock proceeds to take a cruise, but she makes 529 contributions instead.

Mark Sellner, a retired tax attorney and CPA living in Sarasota, Fla., uses this strategy. His children sell stock he gives them and fund 529 plans for his grandchildren.

The family’s tax savings aren’t huge, but he likes other benefits. The sales by his children don’t boost his adjusted gross income, which in turn could raise his Medicare Irmaa premiums or his 3.8% surtax on net investment income.

Sellner doesn’t worry about his children using the funds for another purpose.

“There can’t be any strings attached to gifts. Of course, it is up to us to decide whether to make them in the future,” he says.

Two caveats: The “kiddie tax” applies to most children under age 24, and it is levied at the parents’ rate on investment income above $2,700 in 2026. Consider this before making gifts to a young person.

Investors who give away stock also forgo the step-up, an important provision that exempts assets held at death from capital-gains tax.

Sellner knows he’s losing a step-up, but says, “The children could use a little more now. Why should they wait 20 years to get it?”

Disclaimers

A disclaimer is a highly useful strategy in which one heir renounces an inheritance in favor of another heir. Assuming family members cooperate, this can save taxes.

Here’s one example. Dad died and had a large traditional IRA that he left to Mom. She has enough assets and income to cover her expenses, and she lives in a state with a stiff estate tax. The inherited IRA would put her estate over the threshold.

Also surviving are three young-adult children. If Mom disclaims all or part of Dad’s IRA within nine months of his death, that amount could go directly to the children. They will have 10 years to empty the account, and the family as a whole will likely save estate and income taxes.

Disclaimers have many key details, especially regarding beneficiary documents. Although heirs have great freedom in choosing what assets to disclaim, the rules about who gets disclaimed property are rigid. It is best if the original owner names tiers of heirs so that if one disclaims, the next recipient is clear.