Review of 19 studies finds AI use makes people's creative ideas more alike

The effect held across sensitivity analyses and was not explained by publication bias. It was stronger in semantically constrained ideation tasks than in minimally constrained divergent thinking tasks, so task design appears to shape how much outputs converge.

The authors report additional analyses suggesting the effect may persist beyond individual co-creation sessions and reach real-world contexts. They describe the pattern not as a loss of creativity but as a gradual, scale-dependent reorganisation of creative diversity.

The work addresses concern that as human–AI co-creation becomes embedded in creative practice, outputs may converge in meaning across users even when individual creativity improves. The authors define homogenisation as reduced diversity of meanings across users.

Using a three-level meta-analysis of 19 studies and 61 effect sizes, they found a small but significant homogenisation effect. Sensitivity checks and publication bias tests did not undermine it.

Moderator analyses showed the effect depends on the task: stronger in semantically constrained ideation, weaker in minimally constrained divergent thinking. Additional analyses suggest effects may carry over beyond individual sessions into real-world settings.