Dynamics of collective creativity in AI art competitions
Authors: Mason Youngblood, Jeff Nusz, Joel Simon
Organizations: Institute for Advanced Computational Science, Stony Brook University, NY, USA · Morphogen, CA, USA
Abstract
Creativity is a fundamental aspect of how culture evolves, yet the mechanisms by which groups produce novelty are notoriously difficult to infer from the historical record. Iterated learning experiments have shown that cultural transmission reliably distorts artifacts toward the inductive biases of learners, but most of this work uses linear chains between human participants, leaving open how these dynamics play out in the networked, human-AI systems that increasingly shape cultural production. In this study, we leverage one such system, Artbreeder, which hosts daily "remix parties" where users iteratively build on each other's work from a single seed image, producing branching lineages of human-AI co-created images. We analyze a dataset of 130,882 images from 368 remix parties over 13 months and find that images become simpler and converge toward common thematic "attractors" (e.g., steampunk scenes, alien architecture). We also find that while more novel "parent" images produce more novel and complex "children" that attract more likes, users paradoxically prefer to remix images that are less novel and complex. Finally, larger remix parties produce more novelty at the cost of lower complexity.
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.
Creative AI systems are typically evaluated at the level of individual utility, yet creative outputs are consumed in populations: an idea loses value when many others produce similar ones. This creates an evaluation blind spot, as AI can improve individual outputs while increasing population-level crowding. We introduce a human-relative framework for benchmarking AI-induced human diversity collapse without requiring human-AI interaction data, providing an ex ante protocol to estimate crowding risk from model-only generations and matched unaided human baselines. By modeling ideas as congestible resources, we show that source-level crowding is identifiable from within-distribution comparisons, yielding an excess-crowding coefficient Δ and a human-relative diversity ratio ρ. We show that ρ≥1 is the no-excess-crowding parity condition and connect Δ to an adoption game with exposure-dependent redundancy costs. Across short stories, marketing slogans, and alternative-uses tasks, three frontier LLMs fall below parity across crowding kernels. Estimates stabilize with feasible model-only sample sizes. Importantly, generation-protocol variants show that crowding can be reduced through targeted design, making diversity collapse an actionable, development-time evaluation target for population-aware creative AI.
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.