Abstract
AI-generated outputs are frequently perceived as highly creative, but also tend to be more similar to each other (homogenized) than human ideas. Does the human heterogeneity that extends beyond AI reflect valuable thinking that AI misses? Alternatively, is greater human heterogeneity driven by lower-quality ideas and less effective thinking that AI avoids? We developed Expansion of Divergent Generative Expression (EDGE) to map AI's semantic "blind spots" by assessing how strongly/weakly individual human ideas were represented in a task-matched AI semantic comparison set. Specifically, we compared human-generated vs. AI-generated ideas across three open-ended tasks: college admissions essays, alternative uses for everyday objects, and interpersonal advice. Across all three tasks, human responses extended into semantic regions sparsely covered by AI outputs. These distinctively human responses showed no meaningful deficits in creativity, quality, or effectiveness, were associated with equal-or-better academic performance, and with credibly superior ratings and achievement for some outcomes. These ideas were thus not merely poor-performing variation; they performed as well as or better than ideas that overlapped more strongly with AI ideas. More distinctive human ideas tended to receive higher creativity ratings, but this relationship was weak or reversed for AI ideas. Taken together, these results suggest that differentiation among human-generated ideas does not reflect poor thinking that AI can safely omit, and instead may afford both individual and population-level advantages.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.17324
