In a large dynamic experiment where each participant saw example ideas from ChatGPT or from earlier participants before brainstorming, high exposure to AI ideas did not make individual ideas more creative but increased the amount and rate of change of collective idea diversity: in the authors’ words, “AI made ideas different, not better”.

SocioLens project,

Claim LD09-SL-C16 (v1.0)

Provenance and status

Claim type: Estimate
Publication status: Eligible for publication, with a qualifier
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 of co-writing with AI or of AI used as the main source
Limitations: Passive exposure, not co-writing; brainstorming only; read in the arXiv version 3 (July 2025), which states acceptance at ACM Collective Intelligence 2025; the proceedings version was not read
Source (as cited): Ashkinaze, Mendelsohn, Li Qiwei, Budak & Gilbert, “How AI Ideas Affect the Creativity, Diversity, and Evolution of Human Ideas: Evidence From a Large, Dynamic Experiment,” ACM Collective Intelligence 2025, arXiv:2401.13481
Source type: Peer-reviewed conference paper (recorded as “Peer-reviewed conference paper”)
Institutional position: Independent academic (University of Michigan-led)
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

Ashkinaze, Mendelsohn, Li Qiwei, Budak & Gilbert, “How AI Ideas Affect the Creativity, Diversity, and Evolution of Human Ideas: Evidence From a Large, Dynamic Experiment,” ACM Collective Intelligence 2025, arXiv:2401.13481 (Peer-reviewed conference paper)
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 (QUALIFIED) (as printed: “ELIGIBLE WITH QUALIFIER”)
Verification state (coded): CONTENT_VERIFIED_PRIMARY
Source type (coded): PEER_REVIEWED_CONFERENCE_PAPER
Maturity (coded): EMERGING

#	Canonical field	Canonical value (verbatim)	Normalized (Claim Value Vocabulary v1.0.2)
1	CLAIM ID	LD09-SL-C16	—
2	PUBLIC-FACING CLAIM	In a large dynamic experiment where each participant saw example ideas from ChatGPT or from earlier participants before brainstorming, high exposure to AI ideas did not make individual ideas more creative but increased the amount and rate of change of collective idea diversity: in the authors’ words, “AI made ideas different, not better”.	—
3	CLAIM TYPE	ESTIMATE	base_types: ESTIMATE
4	RESEARCH STRAND	B — Creative work, writing and ideas	—
5	MATURITY	EMERGING	states: EMERGING
6	SOURCE	Ashkinaze, Mendelsohn, Li Qiwei, Budak & Gilbert, “How AI Ideas Affect the Creativity, Diversity, and Evolution of Human Ideas: Evidence From a Large, Dynamic Experiment,” ACM Collective Intelligence 2025, arXiv:2401.13481	source_ids: SRC-SL-ASHKINAZE-ET-AL-CI-2025
7	SOURCE TYPE	Peer-reviewed conference paper	classes: PEER_REVIEWED_CONFERENCE_PAPER
8	INSTITUTIONAL POSITION	Independent academic (University of Michigan-led)	—
9	SCOPE	Brainstorming with passive exposure to example ideas	—
10	DESIGN	Experiment in which the pool of example ideas evolves across successive participants; exposure and disclosure varied	—
11	SAMPLE / DATASET	More than 800 participants from more than 40 countries	—
12	MODEL / TOOL / VERSION	ChatGPT-generated example ideas	—
13	COMPARATOR	Low or no exposure to AI ideas	—
14	MAIN RESULT	No effect on individual idea creativity; higher collective idea diversity under high AI exposure; no main effect of disclosing that ideas came from AI	—
15	INFERENTIAL TARGET	How seeing AI ideas changes a group’s pool of ideas over time	—
16	DOES NOT LICENSE	Effects of co-writing with AI or of AI used as the main source	—
17	VERIFICATION STATE	CONTENT VERIFIED	state: CONTENT_VERIFIED_PRIMARY · verified_by: UNKNOWN
18	LIMITATIONS	Passive exposure, not co-writing; brainstorming only; read in the arXiv version 3 (July 2025), which states acceptance at ACM Collective Intelligence 2025; the proceedings version was not read	—
19	CONTRADICTORY / SUPPORTING SOURCES	Homogenization when everyone draws from the same model: LD09-SL-C10, LD09-SL-C15	—
20	GEOGRAPHY / LANGUAGE	Multi-country	—
21	DISTRIBUTIONAL LEDGER	Not recorded	—
22	R01 / FIELD-MAP LINKS	LD-09, D3	—
23	WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS CLAIM?	Studies comparing AI as one input among many with AI as everyone’s main source	—
24	PUBLICATION STATUS	ELIGIBLE WITH QUALIFIER	state: ELIGIBLE · qualifiers: QUALIFIED
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)

“Ashkinaze, Mendelsohn, Li Qiwei, Budak & Gilbert, “How AI Ideas Affect the Creativity, Diversity, and Evolution of Human Ideas: Evidence From a Large, Dynamic Experiment,” ACM Collective Intelligence 2025, arXiv:2401.13481” → Ashkinaze et al. (2025), “How AI Ideas Affect the…” (SRC-SL-ASHKINAZE-ET-AL-CI-2025--v1.0) — Ashkinaze, Mendelsohn, Li Qiwei, Budak & Gilbert, “How AI Ideas Affect the Creativity, Diversity, and Evolution of Human Ideas: Evidence From a Large, Dynamic Experiment,” ACM Collective Intelligence 2025, arXiv:2401.13481; class PEER_REVIEWED_CONFERENCE_PAPER (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 large dynamic experiment where each participant saw example ideas from ChatGPT or from earlier participants before brainstorming, high exposure to AI ideas did not make individual ideas more creative but increased the amount and rate of change of collective idea diversity: in the authors’ words, “AI made ideas different, not better” [Claim LD09-SL-C16, version v1.0]. SocioLens. https://sociolens-web.pages.dev/claims/ld09-sl-c16/v1.0/

@misc{sociolens_ld09_sl_c16_v1_0,
  author = {{SocioLens project}},
  title = {In a large dynamic experiment where each participant saw example ideas from ChatGPT or from earlier participants before brainstorming, high exposure to AI ideas did not make individual ideas more creative but increased the amount and rate of change of collective idea diversity: in the authors’ words, “AI made ideas different, not better”.},
  year = {2026},
  date = {2026-10-15},
  howpublished = {\url{https://sociolens-web.pages.dev/claims/ld09-sl-c16/v1.0/}},
  note = {Claim LD09-SL-C16, 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 0ef6e7237b6abe239e145010a3482b57f44996cfc68b08223722edd93e321e3e.

Repository-authored inputs (not Drive exports)

SocioLens claim — LD09-SL-C16 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 16 — LD09-SL-C16” SHA-256 ffa632dccc82b10553d38241d9735c584766a2c46df7295bf7c851955a4c6645; fixture fixtures/authored/claims/LD09-SL-C16--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-C16 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-C16 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-ASHKINAZE-ET-AL-CI-2025--v1.0 — basis: field 6 of ENTRY 16 — LD09-SL-C16 cites "Ashkinaze, Mendelsohn, Li Qiwei, Budak & Gilbert, “How AI Ideas Affect the Creativity, Diversity, and Evolution of Human Ideas: Evidence From a Large, Dynamic Experiment,” ACM Collective Intelligence 2025, arXiv:2401.13481"; the only field-6 segment of this ClaimVersion's repository-authored ledger block.
SOURCE_PROVENANCE_PIN = SRC-SL-ASHKINAZE-ET-AL-CI-2025--v1.0 — basis: explicit version-pinned public provenance of this ClaimVersion (Amendment v1.2 §6): the pinned field-6 Source record "Ashkinaze, Mendelsohn, Li Qiwei, Budak & Gilbert, “How AI Ideas Affect the Creativity, Diversity, and Evolution of Human Ideas: Evidence From a Large, Dynamic Experiment,” ACM Collective Intelligence 2025, arXiv:2401.13481".