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)

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 page shows version v1.0. Its record never changes, even when newer evidence arrives; the site may add a note to the page or withhold a figure not cleared for public use.

This pinned version is also the current version.

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".