AI-supplied ideas shrink the variety of creative output and erase the non-native writers’ diversity edge, but using AI only to polish human ideas preserves collective creative breadth; simulating diverse humans with current LLMs fails to reproduce human-level variety unless fluency collapses.

Main Finding

Human cultural-linguistic diversity produces greater collective creative variety than native-only groups, and current LLMs cannot simulate or sustainably replace that collective diversity. How AI is used matters: when models supply ideas (AI ideation) they substantially compress collective diversity and erase the advantage contributed by non-native (L2) writers; when models only refine human-generated ideas (AI refinement), collective diversity is largely preserved (though expression becomes more stylistically uniform). Attempts to simulate human pools via persona prompting, multilingual prompting, multiple model families, and high sampling temperature fail to reach human-level diversity except at the cost of fluency/coherence. At the same time, AI ideation tends to raise individual-level creativity ratings, creating a misalignment between private incentives and the collective good — with one important exception: L2 writers using their native language benefit both individually and collectively.

Key Points

• Human diversity operationalized as native (L1) vs non-native (L2) English backgrounds:
  • Without AI, L2 writers produced a more diverse pool of metaphors than L1 writers (centroid-similarity difference Δ ≈ 0.024, p ≈ 0.003).
• Workflow matters:
  • AI ideation (model supplies metaphor + explanation) compressed collective diversity for all writers (vs human-only: b = 0.036, p < 0.001) and erased the L2 advantage (L1 vs L2 no longer significant).
  • AI refinement (model polishes explanations of human-generated metaphors) preserved idea diversity; however, including AI-polished explanations in the embeddings showed stylistic homogenization.
• Language of AI interaction matters:
  • L2 participants who interacted with AI in their native language produced the most diverse idea pools (directional, significant linear contrast across L1 → L2-English → L2-native: b = −0.025, p = 0.015).
• LLM simulations of the full human pool fell short:
  • Simulated persona pools (GPT-4o mini, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Qwen3.5-27b), even when given native-language prompting and high temperature, were less diverse than every human pool (e.g., Claude recovered ~75.3% of human-only diversity).
  • Increasing temperature raised diversity but plateaued below human ranges; extreme temperature that approaches parity produced many incoherent/gibberish outputs (e.g., one high-temp config had ~14% gibberish).
  • Trade-off observed: model diversity increases come at the cost of fluency (higher perplexity).
• Individual vs collective incentives:
  • AI ideation increased individual creativity ratings (novelty/surprise and aptness/explanation) — creating private incentives to use ideation workflows that nonetheless harm collective diversity.
  • Exception: L2 writers ideating in their native language realized both individual gains and higher collective diversity.

Data & Methods

• Design:
  • Preregistered creative metaphor experiment with three conditions:
  • Human-only (no AI assistance)
  • AI ideation (LLM provides metaphors + short explanations that participants could adopt)
  • AI refinement (participants generate metaphors; LLM suggests refinements/explanations)
  • Participants: native (L1) and non-native (L2) English writers; L2 participants could choose AI interaction language (English or their native language). All final metaphors were submitted in English (translations provided when needed).
• Outcomes and measurements:
  • Collective diversity: measured as mean cosine similarity of each metaphor to the centroid of metaphors in the same pool (higher mean similarity = less diverse).
  • Individual creative quality: independent human evaluators (N = 351) rated each metaphor on four items; combined into divergent (novelty, surprise) and convergent (aptness, explanation quality) subscales.
  • Statistical analysis: multilevel regression models (full specs in SI).
• Simulation adversarial test:
  • For every human participant, a persona was built from background metadata (age, sex, ethnicity, education, first language, etc.).
  • Models used: GPT-4o mini; Claude Sonnet 4.6; Qwen3.5-27b.
  • Simulation levers: native-language prompting (L2 personas ideate in their native tongue then translate), sampling temperature sweep (0.5–2.0), and multilingual model selection.
  • Additional metrics: fluency measured by GPT-2 perplexity; format adherence and gibberish rates tracked.
• Robustness:
  • Embeddings tested for metaphors alone and metaphors + explanations (showing expression homogenization when explanations included).

Implications for AI Economics

• Human diversity is an irreplaceable economic input to collective creativity:
  • Firms and research organizations should continue investing in diverse human teams; LLM-driven “silicon sampling” cannot substitute for the breadth of ideas that diverse humans generate without degrading fluency.
• Workflow design matters for organizational innovation outcomes:
  • Using LLMs as idea-generators (AI ideation) is likely to homogenize outputs across employees, diminishing the value of hiring diverse talent and potentially lowering the rate of radical/novel recombinations that drive breakthrough innovation.
  • Prefer workflows where humans ideate and LLMs serve as refiners/polishers (AI refinement), which preserve idea diversity while capturing productivity gains in expression.
• Incentive misalignment and potential market failure:
  • Because AI ideation raises individual productivity/quality metrics, individuals (and managers optimizing short-term KPIs) may rationally prefer ideation workflows even though they reduce collective diversity — a classic private-versus-public-good tension that can produce suboptimal collective innovation.
  • Organizations should align incentives (promotion, compensation, performance metrics) to reward original human ideation and not just polished outputs.
• Practical design and policy recommendations:
  • Product design: build interfaces that separate ideation and refinement stages, expose provenance (who ideated vs who refined), enable native-language ideation and high-quality translation pipelines, and surface diversity metrics to managers.
  • HR/organization: keep diverse hiring and multilingual teams; measure collective diversity (e.g., embedding-based dispersion metrics) as an innovation KPI; create rewards for original human contributions.
  • Platform/policy: support multilingual model development and translation tools that let L2 workers ideate in native languages; consider standards for documenting AI involvement to maintain credit/allocation of rewards.
• Labor-market implications:
  • LLMs will shift task content (more polishing and scaling of expression) but are unlikely to eliminate roles that rely on culturally grounded, diverse conceptual repertoires (creative R&D, cross-cultural product design, high-novelty brainstorming).
  • Policymakers and firms should focus reskilling on ideation, cross-cultural competencies, and evaluation/curation skills that complement models rather than naively replacing diverse human inputs.
• Metrics and monitoring:
  • Organizations should track both individual performance gains from AI and collective diversity outcomes; absence of such monitoring risks optimizing for short-term individual productivity at the expense of long-term innovation capacity.

Takeaway: AI can enhance individual productivity and expression, but it is not a costless substitute for diverse human contributors when the goal is maintaining a broad pool of ideas. The economic challenge is organizational and institutional: adopt AI workflows that protect where humans add unique value (ideation, culturally grounded framing) while using models to amplify expression, and realign incentives so private gains from AI do not erode the collective creativity that underpins long-run innovation.