Homogenization in Language Models

Text generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) often remains limited in diversity compared to that produced by humans. Recent advances demonstrate the presence of inter- and intra-model collapse in open-ended generation of English text, raising concerns about the long-term homogenization of LLM, and more importantly, human thought. However, our understanding of whether this homogenization extends to languages beyond English is limited. In this work, we investigate the role of language on output diversity. Specifically, we aim to understand whether multilingual LLM-generated text is also homogeneous, and whether this homogeneity matches what we observe in humans. Across 23 open-weight models and 13 languages, we find that the artificial hivemind effect is pervasive but uneven in its extent. The intra-model effect holds in three different embedding spaces and under a lexical metric that uses no embedding model, so it is not an artifact of how diversity is measured. The size of the homogenization gap is associated with a model's competence in a language, measured on a held-out translation benchmark, robustly across embedding spaces. Thus, we demonstrate a performance-diversity tradeoff in multilingual LLMs.

Recent research argues that language models exhibit pronounced homogeneity in open-ended generation, framing such behavior as an Artificial Hivemind that poses a long-term threat to human creativity. We examine three of its central results. First, the flagship example is that model responses to "Write a metaphor involving time" collapse into two clusters. Visualization, spectral analysis, clustering, and language model labels all contradict this description. The labels record each response's vehicle, what it compares time to. Our responses and the original authors' own show one dominant vehicle plus a heavy tail of distinct minority vehicles. "Time" is one of our least diverse topics, so the example is a favorable case, not a representative one. Second, the paper measures homogeneity against an undemanding null: responses to unrelated prompts. Under a more demanding null (same-prompt responses expressing genuinely different ideas), 20%-32% of such pairs already exceed the paper's 0.8 convergence threshold. A residual effect survives this null. The paper's same-prompt pairs exceed 0.8 roughly two to three times as often as our different-idea pairs. Much of what the paper calls homogeneity is the shared geometry of answering the same prompt. The remaining measurements lack any null: no human baseline is collected, and the model-indistinguishability statistic has no null. Third, the paper concludes that inference-time interventions are inadequate for combating the Artificial Hivemind, writing that "more generalizable solutions are needed at the model training level." We show that this conclusion is unsupported in three ways, and that an inference-time intervention (prompting) reliably raises measured response diversity. We do not resolve whether the Artificial Hivemind is real. We show that the published evidence does not establish it.

Employers are increasingly using large language models (LLMs) to automate their hiring process. This paper investigates the risk of monocultural biases, in which the widespread deployment of large language models homogenizes biases across the labor market, leading to greater systemic exclusion for certain demographic groups. For ten LLMs, we measure hiring biases across their base and post-trained versions to identify which stage, pre-training or post-training, lead to monocultural biases. We find that, compared to their base models, post-trained models are 3.6% less likely to callback older applicants. This negative shift occurs in eight of the ten models that we evaluate. Post-trained models have much more correlated decisions than base models which is likely driven by human capital traits like skills or college major. However, greater consensus among models increases global systemic exclusion rates from 5.6% to 17.3% and exacerbates demographic inequalities, with intersectional systemic exclusion rates ranging from 12.2% to 21.7% for post-trained models. We find that this inequality is primarily driven by age-based discrimination that is exacerbated in post-training. These results indicate that while post-training techniques may improve models' abilities to select the best applicants, they may raise systemic inequality risks for those at the margin by uniformly introducing new biases.

Many benchmarks track Large Language Model (LLM) performance on tasks with verifiable answers, but less is known about how LLM performance is evolving on open-ended tasks, where creativity, originality and diversity may matter as much as quality. As LLMs increasingly support human ideation and creative work, understanding trends in LLM performance on open-ended tasks is critical. This paper presents a preliminary analysis of LLM creative outputs spanning three years of model releases, examining model responses to Infinity-Chat100, a real-world collection of open-ended user queries, and the Alternate Uses Task, an established psychometric creativity assessment. Using sentence-embedding similarity, we examine trends in LLM responses to these prompts. Our findings show a statistically significant decrease in model output diversity over time, suggesting that LLM outputs may be converging in creative substance across models. If this trend persists, LLM-driven homogenization may progressively diminish human agency in human-AI co-creative work, demanding careful consideration of LLMs' role in the human creative process.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to guide research methodology, yet their default methodological tendencies under minimal prompting remain unclear. Here, we prompt GPT-5.1, Gemini 3 Pro, and DeepSeek-V3.2 with an LLM-extracted research question from each of 1,000 recent arXiv computer-science papers and compare the resulting methodology suggestions against a paper-derived experimental inventory. Since we provide only the research question, the differences we measure reflect initial suggestions and not how optimal those suggestions are. We extract structured method features from both sources, map them into a shared taxonomy, and quantify divergence across multiple taxonomy dimensions including model provider, dataset task type, and evaluation metric type. The strongest imbalance appears in provider choice, with Jensen-Shannon divergence about 3-5x larger than any other taxonomy dimension. Other/Academic single-occurrence models are underrepresented by 23-24 percentage points, while reused academic/community models are slightly overrepresented (4-6pp). LLMs also suggest a much narrower range of methods overall: the effective number of model entities contracts from 1,232 to 59-96, and inter-LLM rank correlations (0.55-0.68) generally exceed LLM-to-paper correlations (0.33-0.56), so the distortions are largely shared across models. Popularity baselines, BM25 retrieval calibration, and paper-level similarity tests confirm that the outputs are query-specific responses, but filtered through a narrower set of options. Researchers who rely on LLM suggestions without cross-checking therefore risk narrowing their methodological search space toward a more concentrated default.

The progress of large language models (LLMs) has fueled claims that model-generated summaries rival or even surpass human-written references, raising questions about whether summarization remains an open research problem. We re-examine this narrative through a multi-track evaluation covering diverse datasets and state-of-the-art LLMs, combining controlled human assessment, bias-mitigated LLM-as-Judge protocols, factuality verification against external knowledge, and corpus-level linguistic analysis. Our findings reveal a more nuanced landscape in which human references continue to demonstrate advantages in informativeness and faithfulness, whereas LLM outputs are preferred mainly for surface-level coherence and fluency. Factuality verification indicates that human references remain more reliable, particularly for claims involving reasoning or synthesis, and linguistic analysis uncovers a pattern of stylistic homogeneity across different models. These observations suggest that current LLMs have raised the floor of summarization quality, but the ceiling of their performance remains below human capabilities.

RLHF-aligned language models exhibit response homogenization: on TruthfulQA (n=790), 40-79% of questions produce a single semantic cluster across 10 i.i.d. samples. On affected questions, sampling-based uncertainty methods have zero discriminative power (AUROC=0.500), while free token entropy retains signal (0.603). This alignment tax is task-dependent: on GSM8K (n=500), token entropy achieves 0.724 (Cohen's d=0.81). A base-vs-instruct ablation confirms the causal role of alignment: the base model shows 1.0% single-cluster rate vs. 28.5% for the instruct model (p < 10^{-6}). A training stage ablation (Base 0.0% -> SFT 1.5% -> DPO 4.0% SCR) localizes the cause to DPO, not SFT. Cross-family replication on four model families reveals alignment tax severity varies by family and scale. We validate across 22 experiments, 5 benchmarks, 4 model families, and 3 model scales (3B-14B), with Jaccard, embedding, and NLI-based baselines at three DeBERTa scales (all ~0.51 AUROC). Cross-embedder validation with two independent embedding families rules out coupling bias. Cross-dataset validation on WebQuestions (58.0% SCR) confirms generalization beyond TruthfulQA. The central finding -- response homogenization -- is implementation-independent and label-free. Motivated by this diagnosis, we explore a cheapest-first cascade (UCBD) over orthogonal uncertainty signals. Selective prediction raises GSM8K accuracy from 84.4% to 93.2% at 50% coverage; weakly dependent boundaries (|r| <= 0.12) enable 57% cost savings.

Generative AI models reproduce the human biases in their training data and further amplify them through mechanisms such as mode collapse. The loss of diversity produces homogenization, which not only harms the minoritized but impoverishes everyone. We argue homogenization should be a central concern in AI safety. To meaningfully characterize homogenization in Large Language Models (LLMs), we introduce a framework that allows stakeholders to encode their context and value system. We illustrate our approach with an experiment that surfaces gender bias in an LLM (Claude 3.5 Haiku) on an open-ended story prompt. Building from queer theory, we formalize homogenization in terms of normativity. Borrowing language from feminist theory, we introduce the concept of xeno-reproduction as a class of tasks for mitigating homogenization by promoting diversity. Our work opens a collaborative line of research that seeks to understand and advance diversity in AI.