Too Late to Prune: Generative AI, the Screen, and Team Creative Decisions

arXiv:2610.14984v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative AI makes options cheap and shifts the bottleneck of creative work from generating options to screening them. We argue that AI's value depends on whether its options arrive before or after the team's screen. In our model, early options compete for a place in the portfolio; late options arrive after that competition and are kept unscreened. In a preregistered experiment, we randomly assigned 148 three-person teams to five schedules of access to the same language model during a product-design task with timed search and selection stages. Moving the same 15 minutes of access from search to selection lowered expert-rated creativity by 0.62 standard deviations, although teams used the model at similar rates. Platform logs locate the difference at the screen. Early access enlarged the pool of ideas fivefold, and teams pruned it. Late-access teams reached the screen with the same small pool as teams without AI and then searched again, devoting 29% of their selection-stage queries to generating new options, compared with 11% for teams with access throughout. Late access added breadth, not quality: these teams submitted 73% more proposals than did teams without AI. Language-model judges detected the benefit of access but not the cost of late timing.

Abstract:Generative AI makes options cheap and shifts the bottleneck of creative work from generating options to screening them. We argue that AI's value depends on whether its options arrive before or after the team's screen. In our model, early options compete for a place in the portfolio; late options arrive after that competition and are kept unscreened. In a preregistered experiment, we randomly assigned 148 three-person teams to five schedules of access to the same language model during a product-design task with timed search and selection stages. Moving the same 15 minutes of access from search to selection lowered expert-rated creativity by 0.62 standard deviations, although teams used the model at similar rates. Platform logs locate the difference at the screen. Early access enlarged the pool of ideas fivefold, and teams pruned it. Late-access teams reached the screen with the same small pool as teams without AI and then searched again, devoting 29% of their selection-stage queries to generating new options, compared with 11% for teams with access throughout. Late access added breadth, not quality: these teams submitted 73% more proposals than did teams without AI. Language-model judges detected the benefit of access but not the cost of late timing.

General Economics (econ.GN); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2610.14984 [econ.GN]

(or arXiv:2610.14984v1 [econ.GN] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.14984 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

analiza aiqbench

Too Late to Prune: Generative AI, the Screen, and Team Creative Decisions

Subiecte conexe