Large language models sharpen individual outputs but shrink the pool of distinct ideas: across stories, slogans and alternative-use prompts three frontier LLMs generate systematically less diverse idea sets than comparable human samples, implying higher redundancy costs — though targeted generation protocols can reduce that crowding.

Main Finding

The paper introduces an ex ante, human-relative framework to quantify AI-induced human diversity collapse from model-only and matched unaided human samples. It defines interpretable source-level metrics—an excess-crowding coefficient (∆) and a human-relative diversity ratio (ρ)—that are identifiable from within-distribution comparisons. Theoretical results link these source metrics to a population adoption (congestion) game: if ρ < 1 a model imposes an adoption-dependent externality (higher redundancy cost) on creators; if ρ ≥ 1 the model introduces no excess crowding. Empirically, across three creative tasks (short stories, alternative-uses, marketing slogans) and three frontier LLMs (GPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 2.5 Flash), neutral model-conditions fall below parity (ρ < 1), indicating positive excess crowding vs. matched human baselines. The paper also shows estimates stabilize with feasible model-only sample sizes and that prompt/protocol interventions (temperature, persona mixtures) can reduce crowding.

Key Points

• Conceptual framing
  • Ideas-as-congestible-resources: inspiration sources act like shared resources whose repeated use reduces downstream distinctiveness.
  • Human-relative benchmark: contextualize model crowding against task-matched unaided human crowding to avoid conflating task-constrained convergence with model effects.
• Source-level metrics (identifiable from samples)
  • κH,k = E_{h,h'~Hk}[Kk(h,h')] (human pairwise crowding)
  • κA,m,k = E_{a,a'~Am,k}[Kk(a,a')] (model pairwise crowding)
  • ∆m,k = max{0, κA,m,k − κH,k} (excess-crowding coefficient)
  • ρm,k = (1 − κA,m,k) / (1 − κH,k) (human-relative diversity ratio)
  • Parity condition: ∆ = 0 ⇔ ρ ≥ 1 (no excess crowding)
• Links to economic/adoption theory
  • Redundancy cost (exposure-dependent): Cm,k(X−i) = γk (1 − exp{−X−i ∆m,k}), where γk is value of distinctiveness and X−i is number of other adopters.
  • Critical-benefit adoption threshold: a creator adopts iff private AI benefit Bi,m,k exceeds the redundancy cost; thus lower ρ increases the benefit required for rational adoption.
  • Mass-adoption limit: if ρ < 1, excess crowding can reach full distinctiveness penalty γk as adoption grows; if ρ ≥ 1 no excess penalty arises at any exposure.
• Empirical findings
  • Neutral prompting (T = 1), 50 model-only draws per task-condition: all nine model×task combinations had ρ < 1 under the primary semantic kernel; bootstrap CIs for ρ were below 1.
  • Example: GPT-5.4 in the slogan condition showed a large deficit (bρ ≈ 0.179).
  • Rarefaction diagnostics: pairwise crowding estimates stabilize with feasible model-only sample sizes, supporting practical development-time evaluation.
  • Task-specific kernels (plot-synopsis, concept-bucket, lexical-template) corroborate results across representational levels.
  • Generation-protocol variants (temperature sweeps, persona-mixture prompting) can move model-conditions toward parity; crowding is not immutable to prompting/design.

Data & Methods

• Tasks and human baselines
  • Short stories: 3 compact-fiction prompts from WritingPrompts; 87 human authors (one story each).
  • Alternative Uses Task (AUT): socialmuse dataset; 109 human contributors generating 3,047 unaided ideas across five objects (primary uses excluded).
  • Smartphone slogans: IRB-approved study with 95 contributors producing 659 slogans (650 unique).
  • Each prompt/object/slogan context treated as a task condition k; estimates are computed within-condition and then equally aggregated across conditions.
• Models & generation protocols
  • Models: GPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 2.5 Flash.
  • Main protocol: neutral prompting, temperature T = 1.0, 50 independent model-only generations per condition.
  • Deployment variants: temperature sweeps and a persona-mixture protocol (25-persona grid based on Big Five binary dimensions).
• Crowding kernels
  • Primary kernel (semantic): Ksem(x,y) = (1 + cos(embed(x), embed(y))) / 2, mapping cosine similarity to [0,1].
  • Task-specific kernels: plot-synopsis similarity for stories, concept-bucket co-membership for AUT, lexical-template overlap for slogans.
  • Same kernel applied to both human and model samples for comparability.
• Estimation procedure
  • Matched-sample bootstrap: for each condition, draw bm,k = min(nH_k, nA_m,k) human units and model generations with replacement; compute mean off-diagonal pairwise K values to estimate κH,k and κA,m,k.
  • Compute ∆ and ρ per condition; aggregate equally across conditions in a task family; use percentile bootstrap intervals for uncertainty.
  • Participant-aware sampling when humans contributed multiple responses (sample participant, then one response) to avoid domination by prolific contributors.
  • Rarefaction curves used to assess finite-sample stability.
• Theoretical results and assumptions
  • Independent-exposure and mean-field approximations used to derive adoption-cost expressions; crowding kernel bounded in [0,1].
  • Decision-theoretic interpretation requires estimates of γk, adoption probability p, and population size N for translating ∆ into expected costs.

Implications for AI Economics

• Externalities and adoption dynamics
  • Shared use of generative models can produce negative externalities (excess crowding) that reduce private returns to distinctiveness and alter aggregate welfare.
  • The framework cleanly separates a model-intrinsic crowding parameter (∆ or ρ) from population context (N, adoption prevalence p) and value of distinctiveness (γ), enabling modular welfare and adoption analyses.
  • In markets where distinctiveness is valuable (high γ) and adoption rates are high, models with ρ < 1 raise the private benefit threshold for adoption and can produce large aggregate redundancy costs.
• Policy, platform, and firm strategy applications
  • Ex ante auditing: developers and platforms can estimate ∆ and ρ from model-only samples before deployment to audit crowding risk and compare model-conditions.
  • Product design & mitigation: generation-protocol choices (e.g., higher temperature, persona mixtures, diversity-promoting decoding) are actionable levers to reduce crowding and move toward parity.
  • Pricing and market design: knowledge of crowding externalities could inform subscription pricing, feature segmentation, or differentiation (e.g., offering diversified-generation modes as a premium privacy/uniqueness feature).
  • Regulation and standards: ρ and ∆ provide candidate metrics for assessing population-level cultural/creative impacts and could inform guidelines around the deployment of ideation tools in domains where distinctiveness matters (journalism, marketing, patent ideation).
• Research and measurement implications
  • Practicality: the method requires only model-only and matched human-only samples and stabilizes with modest sample sizes, making it feasible for routine use in model development cycles.
  • Decision support: combining source-level ρ estimates with market parameters (p, N, γ) yields quantitative predictions of expected redundancy costs and critical benefit thresholds for adoption—useful for forecasting adoption and welfare impacts.
• Limitations and caveats relevant to economic interpretation
  • Kernel dependence: results depend on the choice of crowding kernel; different representational levels may yield different quantitative conclusions—careful kernel selection is essential for domain-relevant policy.
  • Behavioral assumptions: the adoption game uses independent-exposure and mean-field approximations; real-world strategic behavior, network structure, and feedback loops (e.g., personalization, model updates) can complicate dynamics.
  • Mapping to realized human outputs: source-level excess crowding is necessary but not sufficient for realized human-AI diversity collapse—users may selectively use or transform model outputs; empirical human–AI interaction data remains necessary to validate realized effects in deployment contexts.
  • Value of distinctiveness (γ) and beliefs about others’ adoption (p) are context-dependent and may be hard to estimate; welfare conclusions require domain-specific calibration.

Overall, the paper provides a usable, theoretically grounded ex ante tool for measuring model-driven crowding risk and links that measurement to adoption incentives and aggregate externalities—offering developers, platforms, and policymakers a concrete pathway to audit and mitigate population-level harms from creative AI.