The Future of AI is Many, Not One

Although artificial intelligence (AI) now matches or exceeds human performance across numerous cognitive tasks, creativity remains a highly contested frontier. As AI systems based on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted in research and innovation, it is essential to understand and augment their creativity. Here we demonstrate that multi-agent LLM teams not only surpass single agents, but also substantially outperform human teams in creativity (Cohen's d=1.50) across 4,541 multi-agent LLM ideas and 341 human-team ideas on six diverse problem-solving tasks. This advantage is driven by novelty while maintaining comparable usefulness. To investigate the generative processes in both groups, we represent conversations as paths through semantic space using neural language model representations. Both LLM and human teams produce more creative ideas when conversations range widely rather than staying centered on a single theme (low global coherence). However, the additional patterns that predict creativity differ: LLM teams benefit from efficient exploration (high semantic spread, shorter paths), while human teams benefit from maintaining smooth conversational flow (high local coherence, frequent pivots). Additionally, we identify model choice and discussion structure as orthogonal design levers that together explain 26.8% of variance in LLM conversational dynamics, paving the way for systematic approaches to developing multi-agent systems with augmented creative capabilities.

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.

Progress in artificial intelligence is widely assumed to scale with effort: more researchers, papers and investment should accelerate discovery. Theories of technological growth instead locate the difficulty of discovery in the space of ideas. Here we show that neither scale nor space is enough: breakthroughs depend on diverse attention, which collective concentration can deplete. Across 36 years of computer science, we analyze 7.2 million papers, 73,089 peer reviews and 3.7 million researchers and their topic shifts. The field expanded while its attention narrowed sharply after the Transformer. Over half of topic-shifting researchers moved into AI, especially mid-career ones, and reviewer confidence fell by a full point on a 5-point scale. Each successive breakthrough, from AlexNet to large language models, raised the field's carrying capacity for ideas but was followed by steeper exhaustion of those ideas. Bigger breakthroughs capture attention more completely, depleting the diversity their successors may draw upon. Structural biology shows the same cycle after cryo-EM and AlphaFold. Simulations show how well-intentioned and widely used policies such as reciprocal reviewing empower prolific authors and further narrow what the field accepts. We call for institutions that protect diverse attention in artificial intelligence rather than reward concentration on the winning paradigm.