--- title: "The stories grew alike. Each one got better." url: https://deadwritingtheory.com/cases/better-stories-more-alike/ summary: "In a preregistered experiment, AI story ideas made each story better and the stories as a group more alike: individually better off, collectively narrower." published: 2026-10-04 updated: 2026-10-04 author: "Jack Stovell" publisher: "Adapt Progress Evolve Limited" language: en-GB --- # The stories grew alike. Each one got better. In a preregistered experiment, AI story ideas made each story better and the stories as a group more alike: individually better off, collectively narrower. **Case No. DWT-007: Better stories, more alike.** Split verdict. Filed 4 October 2026. - **The question:** Does access to generative AI ideas make stories more creative, and does it make different writers' stories more alike? - **The sample:** 293 writers wrote eight-sentence stories with no AI help, one GPT-4 story idea or up to five; 600 evaluators made 3,519 evaluations; similarity measured with text embeddings - **The study:** Anil R. Doshi, Oliver P. Hauser (UCL School of Management; University of Exeter), "Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content", Science Advances, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adn5290 - **Whose study:** Third-party study. Not our study. Entered into evidence from Anil R. Doshi, Oliver P. Hauser, UCL School of Management; University of Exeter. - **Peer review:** Peer reviewed ## Findings of fact 1. With up to five AI ideas, novelty rose 8.1% over writers without generative AI access. 2. With up to five AI ideas, usefulness rose 9.0%. 3. Less creative writers gained most: 10 to 11% on creativity and 22 to 26% on how enjoyable and well written the story is. 4. The increase in similarity from one or five AI ideas was 10.7% and 8.9% of the total range. 5. The authors: "With generative AI, writers are individually better off, but collectively a narrower scope of novel content is produced." ## Caveats for the jury - A lab experiment with UK participants, short fiction and early GPT-4. - Writers got AI ideas, not AI-written text. - The similarity effect is modest: 10.7% and 8.9% of the total range. ## The court reporter's account Last case, and the one I'd frame on the wall. Doshi (UCL School of Management) and Hauser (University of Exeter) published in Science Advances in 2024: "Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content". Peer reviewed, and a preregistered experiment, which means they said what they'd test before they tested it. Rare. Lovely. The setup: 293 writers wrote eight-sentence stories. Some writers got no AI help at all, while others got one GPT-4 story idea or up to five. Then 600 evaluators made 3,519 evaluations, and similarity was measured with text embeddings. The good news first. With up to five AI ideas, novelty rose 8.1% and usefulness 9.0%. Less creative writers gained the most: 10 to 11% on creativity and 22 to 26% on how enjoyable and well written the story was. If you've ever coached a junior who freezes at a blank page, you can see the appeal. But here's the catch. The stories became more similar to each other. The increase in similarity from one or five AI ideas was 10.7% and 8.9% of the total range. Their summary says it best: with generative AI, writers are individually better off, but collectively a narrower scope of novel content is produced. That's the whole theory on trial, in miniature. Everyone's story improves and everyone's story starts to rhyme. Caveats, honestly given. It's a lab experiment with short fiction, early GPT-4, and AI ideas rather than AI-written text. And the similarity effect is modest; nobody should read this as proof the world is about to sound identical. Still. A tool that makes each of us a bit better and all of us a bit closer is exactly the sort of thing you'd miss from inside your own inbox. Verdict: split. ## The exhibits entered in this case ### For the prosecution - **Exhibit P-10**: Stories written with AI ideas grew more alike. **10.7%** of the total similarity range, with one AI idea. 8.9% with up to five AI ideas. 293 writers in a preregistered experiment; similarity measured with text embeddings. ### For the defence - **Exhibit D-11**: Each story got better with AI ideas. **8.1%** rise in novelty with up to five AI ideas. Usefulness rose 9.0%. Less creative writers gained most: 10 to 11% on creativity, 22 to 26% on how enjoyable and well written the story is. ## The finding In a preregistered experiment, AI story ideas made each story better and the stories as a group more alike: individually better off, collectively narrower. ## Sources - [Doshi and Hauser, "Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content", Science Advances, 2024 (the original study)](https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adn5290) - [Doshi and Hauser, the same paper on PubMed Central (open access)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11244532/) ## Questions people ask ### Does AI make writing more alike? In this experiment, yes, modestly. Doshi and Hauser (Science Advances, 2024) found the increase in similarity between stories from one or five AI ideas was 10.7% and 8.9% of the total range. ### Does AI make writing better? For each writer, yes. With up to five AI ideas, novelty rose 8.1% and usefulness 9.0%, and less creative writers gained most: 10 to 11% on creativity and 22 to 26% on how enjoyable and well written the story is. ### Why is the verdict split? Because both happened at once. In the authors' words, writers are individually better off, but collectively a narrower scope of novel content is produced. ### How was it measured? A preregistered online experiment: 293 writers wrote eight-sentence stories with no AI help, one GPT-4 idea or up to five, and 600 evaluators made 3,519 evaluations. It is a third-party study, not ours.