In a preregistered online experiment, writers given one or up to five story ideas from GPT-4 wrote stories rated 5.4% and 8.1% more novel and 3.7% and 9.0% more useful than writers without AI, with the largest gains for less creative writers; but their stories were 5.2% and 5.0% more similar to the AI ideas and more similar to each other.

SocioLens project,

Claim LD09-SL-C10 (v1.0)

Research opportunities this claim motivates

What this claim leaves open for research. Each is a hypothesis about a gap, not a finding.

Does handing work to the model cause both skill loss and sameness?Writers given AI ideas wrote stories rated more novel but more similar to each other and to the AI ideas.
Does the convergence caused by writing with AI persist or compound over months of use?Stories written with AI ideas were rated better and were more similar to each other, in one session.
Is the diversity of what reaches the market falling, or only diversity inside experiments?AI-assisted stories were rated better and were more alike in an experiment.

Provenance and status

Claim type: Estimate
Publication status: Eligible for publication, with qualifiers: strong scope
Verification state: Checked against the primary source. Who checked this claim is not recorded for it; claim checks so far were AI-led, and no person has checked claims against their sources.
Does not license: Effects in markets or over time; a statement that stories are “10.7% more similar” (that figure is a share of a score range)
Limitations: One short task, one model generation, online sample, English only; effects are small; “collective” means the pool of stories in the experiment
Source (as cited): Doshi & Hauser, “Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content,” Science Advances 10, eadn5290, 2024
Source type: Peer-reviewed journal article (recorded as “Peer-reviewed journal article”)
Institutional position: Independent academic (UCL School of Management and University of Exeter)
Maturity of the evidence: Emerging evidence
Recorded date: 15 October 2026
Currentness / correction: This is the current version. No correction or concern is recorded on its sources.

Sources this version cites

Doshi & Hauser, “Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content,” Science Advances 10, eadn5290, 2024 (Peer-reviewed journal article)
Read the original

Version

This is the current version, v1.0. Earlier versions stay available, and their records never change.

Versions: v1.0 · current

Raw record: every recorded field, with its coded values

All 25 canonical Claim fields, verbatim, with the coded values derived from them. The plain-language labels above are read from these.

Claim type (coded): ESTIMATE (as printed: “ESTIMATE”)
Publication status (coded): ELIGIBLE (STRONG_SCOPE) (as printed: “ELIGIBLE WITH STRONG SCOPE QUALIFIER”)
Verification state (coded): CONTENT_VERIFIED_PRIMARY
Source type (coded): PEER_REVIEWED_JOURNAL_ARTICLE
Maturity (coded): EMERGING

#	Canonical field	Canonical value (verbatim)	Normalized (Claim Value Vocabulary v1.0.2)
1	CLAIM ID	LD09-SL-C10	—
2	PUBLIC-FACING CLAIM	In a preregistered online experiment, writers given one or up to five story ideas from GPT-4 wrote stories rated 5.4% and 8.1% more novel and 3.7% and 9.0% more useful than writers without AI, with the largest gains for less creative writers; but their stories were 5.2% and 5.0% more similar to the AI ideas and more similar to each other.	—
3	CLAIM TYPE	ESTIMATE	base_types: ESTIMATE
4	RESEARCH STRAND	B — Creative work, writing and ideas	—
5	MATURITY	EMERGING	states: EMERGING
6	SOURCE	Doshi & Hauser, “Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content,” Science Advances 10, eadn5290, 2024	source_ids: SRC-SL-DOSHI-HAUSER-SCIENCE-ADVANCES-2024
7	SOURCE TYPE	Peer-reviewed journal article	classes: PEER_REVIEWED_JOURNAL_ARTICLE
8	INSTITUTIONAL POSITION	Independent academic (UCL School of Management and University of Exeter)	—
9	SCOPE	Eight-sentence short stories for a teenage and young-adult audience	—
10	DESIGN	Preregistered randomized experiment with three arms; blind evaluation; similarity from text embeddings	—
11	SAMPLE / DATASET	293 writers and 600 evaluators recruited online	—
12	MODEL / TOOL / VERSION	GPT-4 (2023) generating three-sentence story ideas	—
13	COMPARATOR	Writers without access to AI ideas	—
14	MAIN RESULT	Novelty +5.4% (one idea) and +8.1% (five); usefulness +3.7% and +9.0%; less creative (low-DAT) writers novelty +6.3% and +10.7%; similarity to the AI ideas +5.2% and +5.0%; similarity to other stories in the same condition up by an amount the paper puts at 10.7% and 8.9% of the range of human-only scores	—
15	INFERENTIAL TARGET	The trade-off between individual creative quality and the diversity of what a group produces	—
16	DOES NOT LICENSE	Effects in markets or over time; a statement that stories are “10.7% more similar” (that figure is a share of a score range)	—
17	VERIFICATION STATE	CONTENT VERIFIED	state: CONTENT_VERIFIED_PRIMARY · verified_by: UNKNOWN
18	LIMITATIONS	One short task, one model generation, online sample, English only; effects are small; “collective” means the pool of stories in the experiment	—
19	CONTRADICTORY / SUPPORTING SOURCES	AI exposure raising collective diversity: LD09-SL-C16	—
20	GEOGRAPHY / LANGUAGE	UK / English	—
21	DISTRIBUTIONAL LEDGER	Gains were largest for less creative writers, so AI narrowed differences between writers while making their work more alike	—
22	R01 / FIELD-MAP LINKS	LD-09, D3	—
23	WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS CLAIM?	Field or longitudinal evidence on whether homogenization in a pool of work persists or grows	—
24	PUBLICATION STATUS	ELIGIBLE WITH STRONG SCOPE QUALIFIER	state: ELIGIBLE · qualifiers: STRONG_SCOPE
25	RECORDED DATE	2026-10-15	—

Field 22 references resolved against Field Map v0.2: LD-09 (LIVING_DEBATE); D3 (DOMAIN)

The sources as recorded, with their record IDs and coded source types:

Pinned Sources (field 6, version-specific)

“Doshi & Hauser, “Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content,” Science Advances 10, eadn5290, 2024” → Doshi & Hauser (2024), “Generative AI enhances individual…” (SRC-SL-DOSHI-HAUSER-SCIENCE-ADVANCES-2024--v1.0) — Doshi & Hauser, “Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content,” Science Advances 10, eadn5290, 2024; class PEER_REVIEWED_JOURNAL_ARTICLE (explicit public provenance pin)

Cited by Living Debate versions

Individual gain, collective narrowing? Does AI make science, creative work and shared knowledge more alike? (v0.1) LD-09

Cite this page

SocioLens project. (2026, October 15). In a preregistered online experiment, writers given one or up to five story ideas from GPT-4 wrote stories rated 5.4% and 8.1% more novel and 3.7% and 9.0% more useful than writers without AI, with the largest gains for less creative writers; but their stories were 5.2% and 5.0% more similar to the AI ideas and more similar to each other [Claim LD09-SL-C10, version v1.0]. SocioLens. https://sociolens-web.pages.dev/claims/ld09-sl-c10/v1.0/

@misc{sociolens_ld09_sl_c10_v1_0,
  author = {{SocioLens project}},
  title = {In a preregistered online experiment, writers given one or up to five story ideas from GPT-4 wrote stories rated 5.4\% and 8.1\% more novel and 3.7\% and 9.0\% more useful than writers without AI, with the largest gains for less creative writers; but their stories were 5.2\% and 5.0\% more similar to the AI ideas and more similar to each other.},
  year = {2026},
  date = {2026-10-15},
  howpublished = {\url{https://sociolens-web.pages.dev/claims/ld09-sl-c10/v1.0/}},
  note = {Claim LD09-SL-C10, version v1.0}
}

The link points to this version, whose record never changes. For a finding, cite the original study as well: SocioLens summarizes research and does not replace it.

Research-of-record provenance

Materialized by sociolens-materializer 0.6.0 at 2026-09-28T20:00:00.000Z; normalization contract SocioLens — Claim Value Vocabulary v1.0.2 — Pre-Spike Materialization Contract (v1.0.2). Content seal SHA-256 e5573707dfd0f5a8f8596d4f8daff6cc4c43a156913c40c9608e85df996d25b3.

Repository-authored inputs (not Drive exports)

SocioLens claim — LD09-SL-C10 v1.0 (v1.0) — written in the SocioLens repository by Project Lead (Claude, AI) on 2026-10-15; no Drive identity exists. Authority: AGENTS.md "Authority" (the Project Lead decides research content within the research-integrity rules) and the Owner's choice in the SocioLens project chat on 15 October 2026 to build the LD-09 debate; a new Claim, first version, written from the project's LD-09 source notes, checked against full texts or official abstracts. Block “ENTRY 10 — LD09-SL-C10” SHA-256 69891da7bfda4819cfe27455af1eb9622012be9f631d428ab7436d3b71653647; fixture fixtures/authored/claims/LD09-SL-C10--v1.0.

Builder decisions (not Drive data)

VERSION = v1.0 — basis: Claim version taken from the repository-authored claim fixture version (SocioLens claim — LD09-SL-C10 v1.0); the first version of a new Claim of the LD-09 debate
CURRENT_POINTER = true — basis: repository-authored claim "SocioLens claim — LD09-SL-C10 v1.0" (Project Lead (Claude, AI), 2026-10-15); basis: AGENTS.md "Authority" (the Project Lead decides research content within the research-integrity rules) and the Owner's choice in the SocioLens project chat on 15 October 2026 to build the LD-09 debate; a new Claim, first version, written from the project's LD-09 source notes, checked against full texts or official abstracts
FIELD_6_SOURCE_REFERENCE = SRC-SL-DOSHI-HAUSER-SCIENCE-ADVANCES-2024--v1.0 — basis: field 6 of ENTRY 10 — LD09-SL-C10 cites "Doshi & Hauser, “Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content,” Science Advances 10, eadn5290, 2024"; the only field-6 segment of this ClaimVersion's repository-authored ledger block.
SOURCE_PROVENANCE_PIN = SRC-SL-DOSHI-HAUSER-SCIENCE-ADVANCES-2024--v1.0 — basis: explicit version-pinned public provenance of this ClaimVersion (Amendment v1.2 §6): the pinned field-6 Source record "Doshi & Hauser, “Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content,” Science Advances 10, eadn5290, 2024".