CST-9: The Convergence Trap:

Creative Fixation in the Human-AI Era

Introduction

Imagine a world where every brainstorm leads to the same handful of ideas, or every novel starts to sound eerily alike.

Generative AI has burst onto the creative scene with promises of inspiration on demand. Need a plot twist, a marketing slogan, or a novel design motif? Simply ask the AI. Yet alongside these benefits lurks an insidious cognitive pitfall: ideational convergence, also called creative fixation. This is the tendency for human creativity to narrow and converge toward the suggestions or examples provided by AI, leading many people to gravitate toward the same ideas. Instead of expanding our imaginative horizons, overreliance on AI outputs can homogenize them. This phenomenon represents one of several cognitive susceptibilities in human-AI interaction - natural vulnerabilities in our thinking that AI systems can easily amplify.

TL;DR? NotebookLM podcast covering the article and further material.

Why does ideational convergence matter? Human creativity thrives on diversity of thought and the cross-pollination of unique ideas. History’s great innovations, from scientific breakthroughs to artistic movements, often sprang from minds willing to stray from convention. If generative AI systematically funnels different users toward similar concepts, we risk a world where designs, stories, solutions, and even beliefs become starkly uniform.

This is not a far-fetched scenario. Early studies are already documenting how AI assistance, when used incautiously, can increase design fixation and reduce divergent thinking. Researchers have dubbed related effects “AI-induced cognitive atrophy,” warning that over-reliance on AI can diminish mental engagement and independent thinking. In practical terms, this means the more we lean on AI to do our imaginative heavy lifting, the more our own creative muscles risk atrophying from disuse.

This essay explores Ideational Convergence/Creative Fixation (IC/CF) as a growing cognitive susceptibility in human-AI collaboration. We will define what IC/CF entails and why it emerges, analyse its interplay with known AI failure pathologies (those “machine side” failure modes identified by robo-psychologists), and survey the ethical, psychological, and socio-technical risks that arise as a result. Along the way, we will examine real and hypothetical examples - from design and education to science and media - illustrating how IC/CF can lead to individual or societal harm. The goal is to shed light on this subtle yet significant vulnerability: how the same AI tools meant to spur creativity can instead narrow it, and what that means for our shared future of innovation and cultural diversity.

This is the danger of Ideational Convergence and Creative Fixation (IC/CF). In simple terms, IC/CF is the tendency for both humans and AI systems to fixate on a narrow set of ideas, causing different people (or models) to converge on similar concepts and solutions. In the context of cognitive susceptibilities, it’s a kind of creativity bias - a vulnerability in our thinking amplified by AI. When generative AI tools offer suggestions or complete our thoughts, we often latch onto those convenient outputs. The result? AI suggestions can end up “shepherd[ing] many users toward the same concepts, reducing diversity.” In the human-AI era, where millions use the same AI models for writing, coding, design, and decision support, the risk is a collective narrowing of thought.

Why does IC/CF matter so much today? Because diversity of thought is the engine of innovation and human flourishing. Our creative leaps - from scientific breakthroughs to cultural movements - often come from outlier ideas and dissenting perspectives. If AI tools unwittingly lead us all down the same beaten path, we could see a stagnation in innovation, ethical blind spots, and a false sense that AI outputs are the only or best answers. This susceptibility has always lurked in human cognition (consider the well-known effects of groupthink or anchoring bias), but the scale and speed of AI make it newly potent. A single large language model’s phrasing or a popular image generator’s style can permeate thousands of minds in an instant.

At its core, IC/CF is about getting stuck - both machines and humans falling into habitual patterns of thinking. An AI autocomplete might bias you toward a generic email greeting, or a code assistant might suggest the same standard library function to every programmer. Over time, these small convergences add up. Individually, you might overlook better or more original ideas; collectively, we risk an “algorithmic monoculture” where variations diminish and novelty gives way to a homogeneous norm. In the human-AI era, recognizing IC/CF is critical because it’s subtle. Unlike a glaring AI failure (say, a self-driving car crash or a chatbot spewing nonsense), creative convergence happens quietly - as a slow erosion of originality and initiative. We might only realize the damage in hindsight, when our intellectual landscape has noticeably flattened.

This is the latest in our articles on Cognitive Susceptibilities, where we’ll blend recent research findings with high-level insight, keeping the discussion accessible but grounded in evidence. Let’s begin by looking at how IC/CF manifests in today’s advanced AI systems - and why even the smartest models can lead us into the convergence trap.

Ideational Convergence / Creative Fixation: A Cognitive Susceptibility

Ideational Convergence (IC) - often called creative fixation - refers to the narrowing of human creative output due to overreliance on AI-generated suggestions. In plainer terms, it’s what happens when people latch onto the ideas an AI provides and stop exploring alternative, original ideas of their own. Cognitive psychologists have long studied “design fixation” in human creativity, where an example (even an unrelated one) can anchor a designer’s thinking and limit the diversity of solutions they consider. In the AI era, that anchoring example is frequently coming from the AI assistant. When your go-to brainstorming partner is a machine that pulls ideas from vast training data, you may unwittingly find your imagination herded toward the most statistically average or prototypical ideas embedded in that data.

It’s important to emphasize that ideational convergence is not a willful lack of creativity on the user’s part, but a subtle cognitive bias amplified by AI. Humans are predisposed to take cognitive shortcuts, and when an AI offers a fluent, seemingly well-informed suggestion, it becomes the path of least resistance. The mind subconsciously asks, “Why think further or differently if this perfectly good idea is already here?” Over time, especially if the AI suggestions frequently appear high-quality, a user’s own idea generation can become stunted - a phenomenon sometimes likened to “Google effect” (relying on external memory) but here it’s an “AI effect” on creativity.

One domain is creative writing. If many authors use an AI co-writer, we might start to see tropes and phrasings repeat. Anecdotally, readers and editors have noticed a certain “AI voice” creeping into prose - a flattening of style, where unique authorial quirks give way to a more generic tone. This is ideational convergence at work: the AI’s suggestions gently nudging writers toward phrasing and plot choices that mirror the broad swath of its training corpus. Over time, novels and screenplays could suffer from a sameness, as if they were all ghostwritten by the same omnipresent entity. It’s easy to imagine a near-future where multiple movie studios, all using similar script-generating AI, end up releasing eerily similar films with interchangeable characters and plot beats - not due to any collusion, but because the AI led each of them down the same well-trodden narrative path.

From a cognitive science perspective, IC/CF can be seen as a failure of divergent thinking. Divergent thinking is our ability to generate many different ideas or solutions, a core component of creativity. AI, by its nature, is trained to predict likely continuations or to produce “optimal” solutions given a prompt. This often means it gives the most common or statistically likely answer. When humans habitually take those answers, the pool of explored ideas shrinks. It’s like always picking the main highway route suggested by GPS - eventually, everyone’s taking the same road and the side streets of innovation are left empty. While AI can also be used to enhance creativity (for instance, by generating surprising analogies or far-out images), the paradox is that without careful design, AI support can just as easily lead to convergent thinking too early in the creative process. If an AI provides an example too soon, it can anchor the human’s mind (a phenomenon consistent with classic associative memory theory of creativity: early examples constrain later ideas). In one study, participants who brainstormed on their own first and only then consulted an AI came up with a greater number and variety of ideas, whereas those who used the AI from the outset produced fewer, more similar ideas and felt less confident in their own creativity. That finding underscores IC/CF in action and also hints at a mitigation: human brainstorming before AI consultation may preserve divergent thinking.

It’s worth noting that ideational convergence doesn’t just apply to obviously “creative” tasks like art or writing. It can creep into problem-solving, decision-making, and even personal opinions. For example, consider an student working on a history essay. If they ask an AI tutor for points to include, they might receive a well-structured argument with key examples. Relying on this, the student may not seek out more unusual or personally intriguing angles - they’ll stick to the AI’s outline, as will many of their peers who asked the same AI. Their essays end up remarkably alike in arguments and even wording. In a broader sense, if people turn to AI systems for advice on how to solve social or business problems, those systems might funnel everyone toward a few “optimized” solutions, overlooking niche strategies. Over-reliance on such suggestions can lead entire groups or industries to fixate on the same set of ideas, reducing the overall diversity of approaches in play.

In summary, Ideational Convergence/Creative Fixation is a cognitive susceptibility where the guideposts provided by AI become blinkers, narrowing the field of view. Users become fixated on AI-suggested ideas at the expense of originality and diversity. It’s a subtle trap: the AI’s output often seems helpful and benign - after all, it gives you a quick idea when you’re stuck. But as one designer noted in a recent field experiment, “I realized five of us ended up with logos that looked like cousins.” This creeping

Framework: How AI Fuels the Convergence Trap

Advanced generative AI systems, from large language models (LLMs) to image generators, have remarkable capabilities - but they also exhibit failure pathologies that can feed IC/CF. To understand the framework, consider how these systems are built and how we use them:

• Models that average the world: By design, most AI models are statistical averaging machines. An LLM like GPT-4 doesn’t truly create from scratch; it predicts text based on patterns in its training data. This means it often produces the most probable or common continuation of a prompt. Over repeated uses, such a model will tend to output familiar phrasings, conventional solutions, and “safe” choices. As one researcher explained, when you give the model the same prompt repeatedly, it will generate ideas from the same underlying distribution - so you get fewer distinct results. The AI’s internal training has effectively converged on certain defaults, and it steers users toward those defaults.

• Reinforcement Learning and the loss of diversity: Modern AI models are often fine-tuned with human feedback (RLHF) to make them more helpful and aligned. But an unintended side effect of alignment is reduced diversity of outputs. Studies have found that RLHF “significantly reduces output diversity” compared to a less-aligned model. In fact, when comparing pre- and post-alignment versions of models, researchers noted a drop in lexical and content variety - the aligned models became more uniform in tone and style. This is sometimes called the “Janus face” of alignment: it curtails extreme or undesirable outputs (good for safety), but also narrows the creative range. An aligned AI might avoid wacky or risky ideas, sticking instead to milder, more predictable responses.

• Bias propagation and pattern lock-in: AI systems learn from historical data, which often contains entrenched biases and dominant patterns. When such a system generates content, it can reinforce those patterns, creating a feedback loop. For example, if a story-writing AI has seen thousands of hero’s-journey narratives, its suggestions may unconsciously push every user toward hero’s-journey tropes. If we then take those suggestions and further circulate them, the bias gets amplified. There’s evidence that humans tend to adopt biases exhibited by AI - sometimes even after they stop using the AI. In one experiment, participants who received subtly biased advice from an AI continued to make biased decisions on their own later, “carrying the bias beyond their interactions with the AI.”

Applied to creativity: if an AI’s outputs systematically underplay certain perspectives or styles (say, it seldom suggests a solution from a non-Western cultural viewpoint, or it sticks to a particular artistic aesthetic), users may internalize those preferences. Over time, alternative viewpoints and novel styles get marginalized - not by any overt decree, but through countless micro-decisions where AI nudges us toward the familiar.

• AI feedback loops (echo chambers): In advanced systems, there is even the scenario of AIs learning from AI-generated data - a kind of “model eating its own tail.” Researchers have raised alarms about model collapse: if new models are trained on content produced by older models, errors and homogenization compound, leading to degenerative performance. This is a technical manifestation of convergence. On the human side, a similar echo effect can occur when AI systems interact with each other or with groups of users in closed loops. For instance, consider social media algorithms (a simpler AI) that learn to promote popular content, which then makes that content go viral, which then trains the algorithm further on that same content - reinforcing a narrow band of visibility. With generative AI, one can imagine bots conversing or writing articles that cite each other, gradually amplifying a single narrative. Without intervention, these self-reinforcing dynamics push toward a stable, but possibly suboptimal, equilibrium of ideas.

• Real-world examples of convergence: A recent Wharton study vividly illustrated how generative AI can induce groupwide fixation. Participants were asked to brainstorm creative uses for everyday objects (like inventing a toy from a fan and a brick). Those using ChatGPT got high-quality ideas - but nearly all of them came up with the same idea. Many even coined identical names for their invention (multiple people independently calling it a “Build-a-Breeze Castle”). By contrast, participants working without AI support produced a wide variety of unique ideas for the fan and brick. In fact, the study found only 6% of AI-assisted ideas were unique, versus 100% uniqueness in the human-only group. This is convergence in action: the AI, drawing on its training, funnelled users toward a particular concept that it deemed likely or optimal, and users ran with it. Individually, each user benefited from the AI’s quick suggestion; collectively, however, their creative outputs became clones of each other. The researchers noted that even when people worked separately, if they all relied on the same AI, “they were more likely to converge on the same answers.” In creative terms, the crowd’s wisdom was replaced by the AI’s wisdom - which, while competent, was much less diverse.

• Key AI failure pathologies related to IC/CF: We can map IC/CF onto several known AI issues. One is mode collapse (in generative models, the tendency to produce limited varieties of outputs, collapsing to a few modes of the data). Another is what we might call “AI groupthink” - analogous to human groupthink, where models or agents that share training data and objectives start giving mutually reinforcing responses. There’s also a tie-in with hallucinations and correctness: as noted, if models push too far into novel (but false) territory, that’s a failure of truth; if they stick too closely to training data to avoid error, that’s a failure of originality. This balance was described as a novelty-usefulness trade-off. When usefulness (or safety) dominates, an AI may become overly fixated on repeating established facts or formulaic solutions - essentially a creative rut. Indeed, the California Management Review observes that models leaning too much on real-world constraints can end up “reproduc[ing] content verbatim from their training data,” stifling originality. Such memorization is the machine analogue of creative fixation.

In summary, the framework of IC/CF is a feedback loop between human cognitive habits and AI’s generative habits. Humans are prone to favour the first acceptable idea (anchoring on initial suggestions), and AIs tend to serve up statistically common ideas (anchoring on training distributions). Together, if unchecked, they form a closed circuit of convergent thinking.

An AI might confidently present a rationale or design as “best practice” (because it appears frequently in its data); the human, impressed by the AI’s fluency, accepts it and perhaps even trusts it more than their own divergent instincts. The human then produces an output that aligns with the AI’s suggestion, contributing back to the pool of “normal” examples. The AI, in future training or reinforcement phases, sees that humans liked that idea, and so it becomes even more entrenched in the AI’s model of “what people do.” Over time, novelty can drain out of the system.

This is not just theory - we already see hints of it. Large language models from different companies, when aligned to human preferences, are starting to sound uncannily alike in style and moral outlook. One analysis of multiple LLMs found a “striking convergence” in their ethical reasoning: despite different training, all the models prioritized the same few moral principles (like avoiding harm and unfairness) and downplayed others. From one perspective, that’s comforting - it suggests AIs won’t wildly disagree on basic ethics. But it also hints that current alignment processes produce a kind of monolithic moral framework across AI systems. If those models are then advising humans on moral or policy decisions, one can imagine a narrowing of the moral imagination. This example underscores that convergence isn’t always about trivial ideas - it can shape fundamental values and judgments.

Having established how IC/CF arises from AI’s inner workings and our interactions with it, let’s delve into why it’s dangerous. The next section explores the risk landscape: how creative fixation and ideational convergence could impact everything from personal growth and well-being to social ethics, public trust, and the long-term alignment of AI with humanity.

Risk Landscape: Ethics, Society, and Alignment under Convergence

When creativity and diversity of thought diminish, the risks ripple outward on multiple levels. Here we break down the risk landscape of IC/CF across ethical decision-making, individual and societal impacts, human-AI relations, and even the grand project of aligning AI with human values long-term. Throughout, we’ll use scenarios and use cases to illustrate these risks, extrapolating consequences if we allow the convergence trap to tighten.

Ethical and Moral Judgment Risks

Convergent thinking in AI-assisted contexts can lead to ethical blind spots and moral uniformity that may not serve all communities. If generative AI systems all produce responses aligned to a similar moral framework (as noted, today’s leading models heavily prioritize certain Western liberal values), they might implicitly marginalize other moral perspectives. Users relying on these AI for advice might never consider alternative principles or culturally diverse ethics. This raises questions of moral hegemony by AI: whose values are we converging towards? For example, an AI might consistently frame solutions to a dilemma in terms of harm minimization and fairness (ignoring, say, values of loyalty or sanctity). While those are important values, a one-size-fits-all moral approach could be miscalibrated in certain contexts (imagine an AI advising an activist in an authoritarian country to always comply and avoid harm, when a bit of righteous troublemaking might be morally justified).

Even more subtle is the risk that human moral judgment atrophies. If people become accustomed to the AI’s moral reasoning - which often appears confident and “objective” - they might fixate on that reasoning and stop exercising their own moral critical thinking. Researchers have found that people sometimes view AI-generated ethical judgments as on par with experts, even when they shouldn’t. Over time, this could create a kind of moral convergence where public discourse narrows to the frames provided by AI. In the long run, a lack of moral diversity could hamper our ability to handle novel ethical challenges. We may all end up marching to the same drumbeat ethically, which is dangerous if that drumbeat turns out to be flawed or incomplete.

Use case: Consider judicial decisions. If many lawyers and judges start using AI advisors to draft opinions or assess cases, and those advisors all follow the same dominant legal reasoning patterns, the law could stagnate. Minority viewpoints or creative interpretations of the law might get filtered out. Ethical nuances in sentencing (for instance, considering a defendant’s unique circumstances) could yield to standardized recommendations. The moral crumple zone phenomenon - where humans defer responsibility to AI - might worsen. A judge might say, “Well, the algorithm suggests this sentence, and it’s used everywhere, so it must be fair.” If later it’s discovered the algorithm had an implicit bias (say against a certain demographic), by that time many cases have converged on its biased recommendation, amplifying injustice. Essentially, convergence can propagate ethical errors at scale.

Individual and Psychological Harm

On the individual level, IC/CF threatens to dull people’s creative edge and agency. Creativity isn’t just a professional skill; it’s tied to our sense of identity and competence. If users become overly reliant on AI suggestions, they may experience a decline in creative self-efficacy - the confidence that they can generate original ideas. Over time, a person who always uses AI to brainstorm might feel incapable of thinking outside the AI’s suggestions.

This is a kind of cognitive dependency. It’s akin to always using GPS and then feeling mentally lost without it, except here it’s about idea-generation and problem-solving. Psychologically, this can lead to reduced motivation and curiosity. Why explore multiple solutions if the first idea from the AI is “good enough” and everyone else is using something similar?

There’s also the risk of confirmation and comfort. AI tools, especially those tuned to user preferences, might learn to serve you ideas you’re likely to accept - staying in your intellectual comfort zone. This personalized convergence can reinforce one’s existing style or viewpoints (much like a social media feed creates a filter bubble). While that feels affirming, it can impede personal growth. We grow when we encounter diverse, even challenging ideas. If your AI co-writer always helps you polish your usual style, you might never develop that new voice or bold approach lurking in you. In a sense, creative fixation can be self-imposed - a gradual self-censorship where you and the AI settle into a narrow groove.

Use case: A fiction writer initially loves using an AI assistant to overcome writer’s block. It produces plot suggestions that are coherent and on-genre. But after a year, the writer notices all her stories have a similar tone and structure, and readers say they feel formulaic. The writer herself feels less imaginative - she hasn’t had a wild new idea in a long time. In this scenario, the AI became a crutch that fixed the writer’s creative trajectory in place. Her imaginative “muscles” atrophied from disuse. This can be disheartening and could even lead to a kind of creative burnout or boredom. The initial boost turned into a plateau, then a dip in creative fulfilment.

From a mental health perspective, there is a subtle danger too: loss of autonomy. Human creativity is closely linked to our sense of freedom and personal expression. If people feel that all their ideas are prefabricated by an AI, they may experience a diminished sense of ownership over their work or even their decisions. This can contribute to feelings of alienation or imposter syndrome (“Was it me who wrote this, or the AI?”). We might argue this is a philosophical worry, but in practice, public trust in individuals’ talents could erode (“Did the scientist come up with that theory, or was it just AI regurgitation?”). If we culturally start expecting convergence (assuming, say, every news article is partially AI-written and thus sounds the same), we may undervalue genuine human originality - a demoralizing prospect for creators.

Societal and Institutional Harm

Scaling up from individuals, IC/CF poses risks to societal innovation, cultural richness, and institutional resilience. Society benefits from a mosaic of ideas - it’s why we value free speech, diverse education, and interdisciplinary collaboration. A convergence trend threatens to create an innovation monoculture. If startups all use the same AI to model business ideas, many might end up pursuing identical strategies (a recipe for market glut or collusion). If R&D teams rely on AI literature reviews to decide research directions, and those AI all highlight the same trendy topics, whole scientific fields could become herd-like, missing out on left-field discoveries.

Institutional vulnerability is another serious issue. A diversity of approaches across institutions (companies, governments, etc.) acts as a hedge against systemic failure. Consider cybersecurity: if all firms deploy an AI code generator that inadvertently introduces a subtle security flaw in encryption code, and everyone’s using that snippet, it could become a widespread vulnerability. In essence, correlated behaviour increases systemic risk. This is analogous to agriculture, where planting a single crop strain everywhere (monoculture) can lead to catastrophic loss if a blight hits - there’s no resilience through diversity.

We can see a parallel in finance: algorithmic trading convergence has caused flash crashes when many actors’ models responded similarly. Now imagine AI decision convergence in, say, hiring or loan approvals. If many banks use the same AI and it has a blind spot for a certain group, that group could be universally excluded (whereas with varied human officers or varied algorithms, at least a few might give them a chance). Or in journalism, if all newsrooms start using AI for initial drafts and it sources from the same info and style, investigative journalism might decline - everyone prints the same wirefeed-like story, and critical unique angles are lost. This can erode the institutional role of the press to question and surprise.

Culturally, the homogenization of content is a risk to societal well-being. Culture thrives on fresh ideas, new art forms, and diverse voices. If creative industries lean too heavily on AI, we might get a flood of books, songs, and videos that all feel the same. Audiences could become fatigued by the “sameness.” Marginalized voices might find it even harder to break through if algorithms favour the styles they were trained on (which often reflect majority or past trends). In education, students using AI tools might converge on similar essay structures and arguments, reducing the richness of classroom discussion and learning. In the worst case, a generation could grow up less practiced in original thought, having always had an AI to suggest the next step. This sounds dystopian, but it starts with innocuous things - like all kids using the same AI-generated study notes, hence coming to the exact same conclusions on open-ended questions.

Human-AI Interaction and Trust

The dynamic between humans and AI could also degrade if IC/CF is not managed. Initially, people might over-trust AI because it delivers competent answers. But as they notice the uniformity or occasional blind spots, they might swing to under-trust - a phenomenon known as trust oscillation. For instance, a team might enthusiastically adopt an AI tool for design, but after a while realize all their designs look alike and also have the same ergonomic mistake. This can lead to a backlash: “The AI led us astray!” and then an overcorrection to not using AI at all. Neither extreme is ideal. Public trust in AI is fragile and crucial; if convergence causes visible failures (like a spate of similar AI-written news articles all missing a key fact, or identical product designs that all malfunction in the same way), people may lose confidence not just in a specific tool but in AI as a whole.

Psychologically, when users sense that an AI is making them less special or less creative, their relationship with the technology sours. We want tools that empower our individuality, not erase it. If an AI assistant starts finishing everyone’s sentences the same way, users might find it creepy or stifling (“it doesn’t sound like me anymore”). There’s a fine line between helpful auto-completion and the feeling of cognitive homogenization. If crossing that line leads to user frustration or a feeling of lost agency, adoption of otherwise beneficial AI technologies could stall. In a workplace, for instance, employees might resist an AI knowledge-management system if they notice it funnelling all decisions down a single path - they may feel micromanaged by the algorithm, harming morale and engagement.

Another interaction risk is reduced human collaboration quality. Ironically, if each human in a team is using the same AI helper, their contributions might become redundant. Traditionally, each team member brings a unique viewpoint; with AI convergence, five people might bring essentially the same AI-suggested viewpoint to a meeting. This can make discussions less vibrant and problem-solving less effective (since the value of multiple heads on a problem is lost if all heads have been pre-filled with the same content). It could lead to complacency in teamwork - e.g., “No need to debate much, we all got the same answer from the tool.” That undermines the critical discussion which is often necessary to catch errors or spark breakthroughs.

Public trust and institutional vulnerability also intersect: consider governance. If regulators and policymakers start relying on AI simulations or advice that are convergent, public policy across different regions might become uniform where it shouldn’t be (ignoring local context). And if that uniform policy fails, public trust in institutions erodes (“everyone followed the AI off a cliff”). The psychology of trust in AI is such that a highly uniform failure can be more damaging than isolated ones - it creates a narrative of widespread incompetence or over-reliance. It’s the difference between one bridge collapsing versus a design flaw that makes hundreds of bridges collapse. The latter shakes confidence at a fundamental level. Avoiding IC/CF is partly about ensuring that AI failures, when they happen, aren’t so correlated that they become global catastrophes.

Long-Term Alignment and Existential Considerations

Finally, let’s zoom out to the long-term alignment problem - ensuring that advanced AI systems remain compatible with human values and interests as they become more powerful. It might seem abstract, but IC/CF has implications here too. One often-cited strategy for safe AI is to have a diverse ecosystem of models and approaches, rather than one monolithic super-intelligence. Diversity provides checks and balances; different systems might catch each other’s mistakes or compensate for biases.

However, market and research forces are currently pushing toward a few large foundation models dominating many applications (an “algorithmic monoculture”). If those models also converge in their training (using similar data, similar alignment techniques, even distilling from each other), we risk a scenario where all AI systems have the same blind spots or failure modes. In alignment terms, that’s dangerous - it’s like having a single point of failure for the human species if that one approach turns out to be misaligned in some way.

Moreover, solving alignment itself benefits from creative, divergent thinking. It’s a hard problem likely requiring insights from many domains and unconventional ideas about controlling or guiding AI. If researchers themselves start to converge too much - say, everyone fixates on one popular alignment paradigm suggested by AI evaluations - we might miss solutions. The societal conversation about AI also needs a diversity of viewpoints (philosophical, geopolitical, etc.). Should AI systems themselves converge to a certain narrative about, for example, the role of AI in society, it could unduly influence public opinion (“every AI I ask says superintelligence is inevitably good, so it must be true!”). This could dull healthy scepticism or alternative scenarios that need consideration.

A speculative but not implausible risk is value lock-in. Thought leaders like Nick Bostrom have warned that advanced AI could lock in the values of whoever designs or deploys it first, potentially for a very long time. If IC/CF causes us to converge on a narrow set of values in our AI (due to using the same training content or reinforcing the same alignment targets), we might inadvertently lock in not the best of human values, but merely the most common or currently convenient.

Human morality and norms evolve; a premature convergence could freeze that evolution. Long-term alignment should strive to represent humanity’s rich tapestry of values - thus, maintaining ideational and moral diversity is actually a safety measure. It keeps open the possibility to course-correct and to include perspectives that were marginalized at first.

Use case (alignment scenario): Imagine future AI governance is guided by a council of AI advisors that read all our laws, philosophies, and so forth. If those advisors are clones of each other (same base model) and were aligned via similar feedback, they might present a united front on what humanity’s values are - but possibly united and wrong. If humans have largely deferred to them (due to earlier over-reliance fostered by convergence), we could slide into a paternalistic future where a narrow interpretation of “human values” is rigidly enforced by AI (“pale shadow” of what we actually care about). Dystopian as it sounds, it might not be an overt oppression - just an end state where creativity, dissent, and moral progress have withered. In contrast, if we keep many independent AIs with diverse training (including value systems) and encourage robust debate among them and with humans, we stand a better chance of navigating the complex future ethically.

The risk landscape of ideational convergence/creative fixation spans from the micro (your personal creativity and job performance) to the macro (societal innovation and existential safety). It touches ethics (by possibly narrowing moral discourse), causes individual and collective harm (by dampening creativity and multiplying synchronized mistakes), affects human-AI trust (by creating cycles of over- and under-trust), and could undermine the very adaptability we need to align AI with humanity in the long run. The picture painted is concerning, but it’s not a foregone conclusion. These risks highlight why we must address IC/CF - and they point to what areas interventions should target.

Next, we turn to those interventions. How can we technically and socially counteract the convergence trap? What mitigations can AI developers, users, and policymakers deploy to preserve a flourishing diversity of thought? The final section offers recommendations, ranging from tweaks in AI training to new norms in how we use these tools, aiming to ensure that human creativity not only survives but thrives alongside AI.

Recommendations: Safeguarding Diversity of Thought in the AI Age

Avoiding the convergence trap requires a mix of technical fixes, user-level strategies, and governance interventions. The goal is to design and use AI in ways that promote diversity, not homogeneity, of ideas.

1. Technical Interventions for AI Developers

• Diverse Training and Ensemble Models: Wherever possible, use heterogeneous training data and even ensembles of models to prevent a single perspective from dominating. If one large model is used by millions, consider introducing slight variations or “model pluralism.” For example, OpenAI, Google, and others could offer multiple tuned versions of an assistant: one more daring and imaginative, one more cautious and factual, etc. If users have access to different “personalities” or models, the outputs across society will be less uniform. An ensemble approach can also be internal: have multiple models generate ideas and then aggregate - similar to consulting multiple experts rather than one. Different architectures or random seeds can yield a spread of suggestions, from which truly novel combinations might emerge.

• Rotate Seed Sets & Prompt Perturbation: AI systems often rely on some initial seed or prompt context (even if hidden). One mitigation is to rotate or randomize seed content so the model doesn’t start from the exact same point every time. By perturbing prompts or adding randomness (controlled stochasticity), we encourage divergent outputs. Importantly, this should be systematic. It’s not enough for a single user to add randomness; the platform or model should have a mechanism to inject variety for users who don’t manually do it. This ensures even passive users get less convergent suggestions. As an analogy, think of shuffle play on music services - it ensures not everyone hears songs in the same order. We need a “shuffle” for idea generation.

• Diversity Scoring and Penalization: Develop metrics to quantify how ideationally diverse the outputs of a model are (within a session and across users). Such metrics can be baked into training: introduce a regularizer for novelty. If a model’s output is too close to its most common training patterns or too similar to what it produced for other users, apply a small penalty. Conversely, reward a spread of outputs. We could fine-tune models on a reward that balances quality with diversity. There is precedent in ML for encouraging diversity (in reinforcement learning, intrinsic motivation can reward novel states; in text generation, some use nucleus or dissimilarity sampling to avoid the dull common phrases). Care is needed to maintain usefulness, but the principle is: don’t always pick the low-hanging fruit of the distribution. Occasionally venture further out on the branches.

• Blind Ideation Rounds via AI: Borrowing a page from human brainstorming techniques, AI systems could implement “blind” modes. For instance, when providing suggestions to a group of collaborators, the AI could give each person a different suggestion privately, instead of the same suggestion to all. This way, when the group convenes, they have diverse starting points (akin to having everyone brainstorm independently before sharing). This prevents early convergence due to everyone seeing the same AI output. Over a large user base, this could markedly increase the diversity of outcomes. It also adds a slight randomness to who sees which idea - functioning like a blind experiment that could surface less typical ideas.

• Chain-of-Thought and Multi-Step Creativity: Encourage models to generate ideas through multiple steps, which can increase variety. The Wharton analysis recommended chain-of-thought prompting to break tasks into smaller parts and avoid repetitive outcomes. For example, instead of directly asking an AI for a final answer, the system could first brainstorm several rough ideas (divergent phase) and then later evaluate or refine them (convergent phase). By structuring prompts to separate idea generation from idea selection, we mimic human creative processes that guard against premature convergence. Over time, users may get habituated to expecting multiple perspectives from AI, countering the one-track-mind perception.

• Monitoring and Transparency of Homogeneity: AI service providers should monitor if their outputs are becoming too uniform. If, say, a code assistant shows a trend that 80% of users now use the same function names or code pattern (when previously there was variation), that’s a signal of convergence that could be addressed. Transparency reports could include a section on “idea diversity metrics” - akin to how social media platforms report on content diversity to avoid filter bubbles. This holds companies accountable to track and improve on this dimension, and gives users insight. If I know the AI’s last 100 answers were highly repetitive, I might prompt it differently or look for alternatives. Essentially, treat excessive convergence as a bug and report it, just as we do for hallucination rates or bias metrics.

2. User-Level Strategies and Literacy

Even with the best AI design, users play a crucial role in mitigating creative fixation. We can empower users with habits and tools to maintain their own divergent thinking:

• Priming for Originality: Users should be encouraged (through UI/UX or education) to generate some ideas independently before consulting the AI. For instance, a writing app could have a built-in “brainstorm first” step: it might prompt the user, “Jot down a couple of your own ideas, then hit the AI assist.” This fights the anchoring bias - by externalizing your own thoughts first, you won’t be as easily anchored by the AI’s suggestion. Some creative professionals already do this deliberately: they use AI after sketching some initial concepts by hand. Making this a norm or even a gamified feature (rewarding users for inputting an original angle) could generalize the practice. It’s about treating AI as a partner that comes in after your initial ideation, not the source of the idea itself.

• Solicit Multiple Answers: A simple but effective user strategy is to always ask the AI for several options. Instead of “Give me an idea for X,” say “Give me 5 very different ideas for X.” Many AI interfaces can do this with a single prompt. By doing so, the user avoids getting psychologically fixated on a single output. It also makes the differences salient - you can compare and see that the AI is capable of variety, which reminds you that the first answer is not the only answer. Users can even explicitly request, “Include one option that is counterintuitive or wild.” This leverages the AI’s range and puts divergence into the workflow. User guides and tutorials can highlight this approach. Over time, it should become second nature: treat the AI like a brainstorming colleague from whom you expect multiple suggestions, not an oracle that hands down one solution.

• Awareness of AI Biases and Limits: Improving digital literacy around AI’s tendencies can mitigate over-reliance. If users know that “AI often suggests the most common solution” or “AI can sound confident even when it’s being unimaginative,” they can adjust. For example, a user might consciously say, “This first answer is probably low-hanging fruit, let me probe for something more offbeat.” Educational content (possibly built into the interface as tips or in onboarding) should highlight the IC/CF issue: “Warning: Using AI can cause many people to converge on similar ideas. Be sure to add your personal twist.” Think of it like a nutrition label: a reminder that while the AI saves time, the “diet” of ideas it provides might be low-variety if consumed exclusively. Some have proposed an AI creativity rubric - a checklist users can go through to ensure they’re not blindly accepting AI outputs (e.g., Have I considered an alternative? Does this solution feel too familiar?).

• Rotation and Collaboration: On the user side in collaborative settings, teams can institute practices such as rotating who uses AI and who doesn’t for certain tasks. If five people are brainstorming, maybe only two use the AI and the others go manual, then they all compare. Next session, rotate. This ensures that not everyone’s contribution is AI-tinged each time. It’s like preserving some “control group” of human thought in the mix. Users can also deliberately use different AI tools if available (one uses GPT-4, another uses a smaller open model, etc.) to get varied outputs. While not always convenient, this can be done in critical creative or strategic tasks to avoid groupthink. Essentially, mix the streams of input feeding into a collective decision.

• Blind Review and Anonymized Contribution: Another technique drawn from organizational best practices: when collecting ideas (some of which may be AI-generated, some human), do it anonymously and blindly evaluate them on merit. If people don’t know which idea came from an AI or which from which colleague, they’re more likely to consider a wide range. This can prevent an AI-suggested idea from getting undue weight just because “the AI suggested it.” It equalizes the playing field of ideas. Some companies are already doing blind resume reviews to reduce bias - similarly, blind idea reviews can reduce source-based convergence (where an idea is accepted because an authority - now AI - proposed it). This encourages judging ideas by quality and novelty rather than familiarity.

• Maintain Personal Style and Voice: For creative tasks, users can consciously maintain their own “voice.” For example, if a writer uses AI, they could use it only for certain micro-tasks (grammar, brainstorming minor plot points) but actively decide key elements themselves, infusing their unique perspective. By delineating what the AI is allowed to contribute versus what the human will contribute, users guard the core creative decisions. If an AI suggests a melody to a musician, perhaps the musician uses it as a baseline but then intentionally adds an unconventional rhythm that the AI didn’t suggest. This hybrid approach yields output that’s part AI, part human - hopefully capturing the best of both and avoiding total AI imprint. It requires discipline and self-awareness: the user needs to recognize when they’re leaning too much on the AI and pull back to insert their originality.

3. Governance and Socio-Technical Standards

At the broader society and policy level, combating IC/CF involves creating standards and incentives that promote idea diversity:

• Audit and Impact Assessments: Just as we assess AI for bias, fairness, and privacy, we should assess for ideational diversity impact, especially in high-stakes domains. Regulators could require companies deploying generative AI (in education, workplace, media) to conduct Cognitive Impact Assessments. If an AI writing tool is introduced in a newsroom, for instance, an assessment might look at a sample of stories before and after and see if topic or angle diversity shrank. If it did, that’s a flag that editors need to adjust usage or the tool needs tweaking. Regulators like the EU (with its AI Act) are considering “access to diverse information” as a right - ensuring AI doesn’t inadvertently become a single gatekeeper of information. Embedding convergence checks into these frameworks would make it a recognized dimension of AI quality.

• Competition and Model Diversity: Monoculture risk can be addressed through policies that encourage competition and diversity in the AI industry. This could mean supporting open-source models, or mandating interoperability so that smaller, specialized models can plug into big platforms (giving users choices). If a few foundation models dominate all applications, the convergence risk is higher. The idea is analogous to biodiversity conservation: don’t put all our cognitive eggs in one AI basket. Additionally, procurement policies for public sector AI tools could include criteria like “the system should provide mechanisms for avoiding uniform outcomes” - nudging vendors to build in anti-convergence features described earlier.

• Guidelines for AI-assisted Workflows: Professional bodies and organizations can develop best-practice guidelines on how to integrate AI without losing creative rigor. For instance, a design association might recommend: “Always start design sprints with human sketches before using generative tools,” or “If using AI for code, conduct independent code reviews focusing on alternative implementations.” These sector-specific guidelines function like guardrails, maintaining a baseline of divergent thinking. In journalism, guidelines might say: “When AI suggests a headline or angle, journalists should also consider at least one alternative angle not suggested by the AI.” Essentially, formalize the practice of double-checking and deviating from AI’s first answers.

• Transparency to End-Users: When content is AI-generated or AI-assisted, informing end-users (readers, consumers) can indirectly combat convergence. If I know that an article was AI-written, I might read it with a more critical eye or seek out another piece on the topic for a different take, thus breaking the one-story narrative. Transparency can also foster a market for diversity: if consumers start feeling everything is samey, they might demand more human, varied content - and content creators could then advertise that as a feature. In the music industry, for example, if algorithmically generated music saturates playlists, some listeners might crave something surprising; labels could then promote artists who consciously break from AI-influenced trends, creating a feedback loop valuing novelty. Policy could support this by requiring clear labelling of AI content, thus empowering consumer choice and competition on the axis of creativity.

• Educational Emphasis on Critical and Creative Thinking: On a societal timescale, the education system must adapt. If AI can provide quick answers and essays, schools should focus even more on how to think creatively and critically rather than what the answer is. Teaching students about cognitive biases, including IC/CF, will prepare them to use AI as a tool rather than a crutch. Curricula could include exercises where students compare AI-generated work and human work, analyse differences, and brainstorm how to improve on the AI’s limitations. The next generation of workers and thinkers need to see staying creative as a deliberate practice, almost a discipline, in the presence of smart tools. Think of it like physical fitness in an age of automation: we use elevators and cars, so we intentionally exercise to keep our bodies healthy. Similarly, with AI handling more mental labour, we’ll need to exercise our imagination and critical thinking in structured ways to keep those faculties in shape.

4. Towards a Human-AI Creative Synergy (Conclusion of Recommendations)

In implementing these recommendations, the guiding philosophy should be “AI as collaborator, not dictator.” We want AI to amplify human creativity, not homogenize it. Achieving that means sometimes deliberately weakening the AI’s influence (e.g., hiding its suggestion initially to let a human think freely) or diversifying its influence (giving many different suggestions). It means training ourselves to partner with AI - leveraging its strengths (speed, knowledge, consistency) while counterbalancing its weaknesses (lack of true insight, tendency toward the mean).

A promising direction is building sociotechnical systems that harness both human and machine diversity. For instance, imagine an “idea marketplace” platform: multiple AIs generate ideas, multiple humans generate ideas, and they are all anonymously posted; then both human and AI evaluators rank them; the best of different categories are combined or further evolved. In such a system, AI is woven in, but so is human judgment and originality, and anonymity/blindness avoid the convergence on one source. This echoes how scientific communities work (with peer review, etc.) but could be turbocharged by AI without losing the human element.

Crucially, none of the technical tweaks or policies work if the culture of use doesn’t change. We must cultivate a culture that values creativity enough to sometimes sacrifice efficiency for it. Yes, the fastest answer might be to accept the AI’s first idea - but we should learn to ask, “Is there a more interesting answer?” It’s like slow food versus fast food: fast food feeds you now, but a slow, thoughtful meal is richer. In the same way, an AI’s instant idea might be fine, but iterating and diverging a bit more could yield something far more innovative. Organizations should reward employees who use AI intelligently rather than just copypasting output. Leaders should look out for conformity in proposals and explicitly invite wildcard ideas (“Who has an approach completely different from these AI-generated ones?”).

Diversity of thought is not always comfortable or smooth; it can feel inefficient or chaotic. We have to remind ourselves (and demonstrate with outcomes) that the long-term payoff of diversity is resilience, adaptability, and breakthrough innovation - things a convergent approach may sacrifice.

By implementing these mitigations, we aim for a scenario where human creativity and AI capabilities co-evolve positively. Rather than AI making us all think alike, it could ironically help us see what the common patterns are and then encourage us to break them. The onus is on us to configure AI and our use of it to that end.

Conclusion

In the grand story of technology and humanity, creativity is our unique signature - the font of art, science, culture, and problem-solving that defines progress. As we usher in ever more powerful AI, we must ensure that this signature doesn’t fade into a rubber-stamped monotone. Ideational Convergence/Creative Fixation (IC/CF) is a subtle but pivotal challenge in this regard. It reminds us that even as AI dazzles us with its knowledge and fluency, we retain the responsibility of choosing our own path - sometimes against the grain of what the machines recommend.

Addressing IC/CF is not about throwing out AI or shunning its help. It’s about being intentional in how we integrate AI into our thinking spaces. It’s about recognizing the cognitive susceptibilities in ourselves - the ease of fixating on a single idea, the comfort of the familiar - and designing AI that counters rather than exacerbates those limitations. The human-AI era should be one where innovation and diversity of thought blossom, powered in part by AI’s ability to broaden our horizons, not shrink them.

And in the extreme long view, a lack of diversity could make our species less adaptable to whatever the future holds - including the challenge of steering AI itself safely.

The good news is that awareness is the first defence.

What lies ahead is the task of implementation and cultural shift. Human flourishing in the AI era will depend on keeping our minds open and our tools flexible. As AI becomes ubiquitous in creative and intellectual tasks, let’s design it to expand our collective imagination, not compress it. That means sometimes engineering randomness, encouraging outliers, and valuing the unorthodox. It means holding on to the insight that progress often comes from the fringes - an insight that an overly convergent AI might forget if we don’t remind it.

Ideational Convergence/Creative Fixation is a reminder of our agency. AI can provide the map, but we choose the destination - and sometimes, the most rewarding destinations are off the well-trod trails. By consciously guarding against IC/CF, we ensure that the future remains a place of surprise, originality, and multi-coloured thought, where human creativity continues to be the wellspring of new horizons, aided (but not overshadowed) by our increasingly clever machines.

References:

1. Doshi, A. R., & Hauser, O. P. (2024). Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content. Science Advances, 10(28), eadn5290pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

2. Meincke, L., Terwiesch, C., Nave, G., et al. (2025). Does AI Limit Our Creativity? Knowledge at Wharton - AI and Innovation seriesknowledge.wharton.upenn.eduknowledge.wharton.upenn.edu.

3. Murthy, S., Ullman, T., & Hu, J. (2025). One fish, two fish, but not the whole sea: Alignment reduces language models’ conceptual diversity. NAACL 2025. (Kempner Institute Blog summary, Feb 10, 2025)kempnerinstitute.harvard.edukempnerinstitute.harvard.edu.

4. Scientific American (Oct 26, 2023). Humans Absorb Bias from AI - And Keep It after They Stop Using the Algorithmscientificamerican.comscientificamerican.com.

5. Scientific Reports (Nov 21, 2022). Humans inherit artificial intelligence biases: the peril of AI-assisted decision-making in clinical settingsnature.comnature.com.

6. Coleman, C., et al. (2024). The Convergent Ethics of AI? Analysing Moral Foundation Priorities in LLMs. arXiv:2504.19255arxiv.org.

7. Neural Horizons Ltd (2025). Cognitive Susceptibility Taxonomy v2.0 (unpublished framework) - entry on Ideational Convergence / Creative Fixation (IC/CF).

8. California Management Review (July 2023). Managing the Creative Frontier of Generative AI: The Novelty-Usefulness Tradeoff - discussion of hallucination vs. memorization in AI creativitycmr.berkeley.educmr.berkeley.edu.

9. Jakesch, D. et al. (2019). AI-Mediated Communication: The Effects of AI on Language and Trust (Computers in Human Behaviour) - referenced via Knowledge@Wharton on “AI as a Moral Crumple Zone” in communicationsciencedirect.com.

10. Terwiesch, C., & Nave, G. (2025). Comments on AI and idea diversity in teamsknowledge.wharton.upenn.eduknowledge.wharton.upenn.edu.