发表机构
Max Planck Institute for Human Development（马克斯·普朗克人类发展研究所）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
该研究通过实验发现，L2写作者的集体多样性优于L1写作者，AI构思会压缩集体多样性而AI润色可保留，模拟显示AI无法达到人类群体的创意多样性，人机协作设计影响人类多样性的存续。
AI 中文摘要
多样化的人类群体产生多样化的想法，这是创新的原材料。生成式人工智能从两个方面挑战这一引擎：日常的AI辅助可能会使不同人群的创作同质化，而AI模拟的多样性可能会完全取代人类。我们在一项预先注册的创造性隐喻实验中测试了这两个挑战，实验对象包括以英语为母语（L1）和非母语（L2）的写作者，他们分别在无AI、使用AI生成的想法（AI构思）、使用AI润色自身想法（AI润色）的情况下进行创作。L2写作者贡献的集体多样性多于L1写作者，其中母语构思的群体展现出最多样化的创意库。AI构思压缩了所有人的集体多样性，使L2的优势无法被察觉，而AI润色则保留了这种优势。随后，我们利用参与者的真实背景、三类模型家族、母语提示以及升高的采样温度构建的虚拟角色模拟了整个写作者群体。所有模拟群体的多样性都低于所有人类群体，且进一步推动模型只能通过退化文本产生多样性。不过在个体层面，AI构思提升了写作者的评分，使个人利益与集体利益产生冲突，除非L2写作者使用其母语，此时两者均受益。人类多样性仍是当前AI无法模拟或维持的宝贵创意资源；人机协作工作流的设计决定了它能否存续。
英文摘要
Diverse human groups produce diverse ideas, the raw material of innovation. Generative AI challenges this engine twice over: everyday AI assistance may homogenize what diverse people create, and AI-simulated diversity may replace the people altogether. We tested both challenges in a preregistered creative metaphor experiment with native (L1) and non-native (L2) English writers, who wrote without AI, with AI-generated ideas (AI ideation), or with AI refining their own ideas (AI refinement). L2 writers contributed more collective diversity than L1 writers, with native-language ideation showing the most diverse pools. AI ideation compressed collective diversity for everyone and left the L2 advantage undetectable, whereas AI refinement preserved both. We then simulated the entire writer pool using personas built from participants' real backgrounds, three model families, native-language prompting, and elevated sampling temperatures. Every simulated pool fell below every human pool, and pushing models further induced diversity only through degenerate text. However, at the individual level, AI ideation raised writers' ratings, pitting private incentives against the collective good, except when L2 writers used their native language, which benefited both. Human diversity remains a valuable creative resource that current AI cannot simulate or sustain; the design of human-AI collaborative workflows determines whether it survives.
