Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Homogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2402.01536 v2 pith:TBVZT2XX submitted 2024-02-02 cs.HC cs.AI

classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords ideasusersuserchatgptcreativecreativitycstsdifferent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are now being used in a wide variety of contexts, including as creativity support tools (CSTs) intended to help their users come up with new ideas. But do LLMs actually support user creativity? We hypothesized that the use of an LLM as a CST might make the LLM's users feel more creative, and even broaden the range of ideas suggested by each individual user, but also homogenize the ideas suggested by different users. We conducted a 36-participant comparative user study and found, in accordance with the homogenization hypothesis, that different users tended to produce less semantically distinct ideas with ChatGPT than with an alternative CST. Additionally, ChatGPT users generated a greater number of more detailed ideas, but felt less responsible for the ideas they generated. We discuss potential implications of these findings for users, designers, and developers of LLM-based CSTs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The One-Word Census: Answer-Choice Conformity Across 44 Language Models

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Forty-four language models asked to name one thing per category converge on the same modal answers far more than people do, with newest flagships most conformist and persona-tuned models most divergent.

Pith tools