LLMs Exhibit Significantly Lower Uncertainty in Creative Writing Than Professional Writers

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 strongly correlates to 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.