The first thing I read from you was a sardonic browbeating in response to the exact comment I gave an earnest response.

And even in domains that lean heavily on "usual phrasing", like technical writing, human writing has notably higher perplexity compared to another LLM's outputs: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10766...

With such a low baseline for what's unusual, you do need to get the LLM writing unusual phrases relative to its baseline. Otherwise you get things like repeated n-grams and overused constructs ("it's not X it's Y"), and suddenly the output is predictably not perceived as creative by humans even if you were to insert some otherwise creative or novel premise.

Getting the model to break out of that baseline without disrupting the model's ability to follow technical rules, maintain logic and reasoning, etc. is the difficult part.

-

Also you're again saying unsupervised then following up with descriptions that sure sound like you're referring to RL and supervised learning respectively this time. (supervised learning can improve creativity by the way