Ideation with Generative AI—in Consumer Research and Beyond

The GenAI Future of Consumer Research

Abstract We develop a novel generative AI (GenAI) trajectory, “democratization-average trap-model collapse,” to identify data and model challenges posed by GenAI, from which we project the GenAI future of consumer research. This trajectory consists of three key phenomena: democratization broadens consumer participation, the average trap produces generic responses, and model collapse occurs when GenAI outputs lose human sensibilities. Data and model challenges arise as democratization enhances data representation while also embedding real-world biases. The average trap, caused by next-token prediction models, leads to generic outputs that lack individuality. Additionally, model collapse occurs when GenAI increasingly learns from its own outputs, amplifying machine bias and diverging from human behavior. To address these challenges, researchers can leverage democratization to study marginalized consumers and prioritize human-centered research over purely data-driven methods. The average trap can be mitigated by fine-tuning models with task-specific and marginalized consumption data while engineering responses for uniqueness. Preventing model collapse requires integrating human–machine hybrid data and applying theories of mind to realign AI with human-centric consumption. Finally, we outline three future research directions: preserving data distribution tails to support consumption democratization, countering the average trap in next-token prediction, and reversing the trajectory from democratization to model collapse.

The Myth of the Instant Cake Mix

How to think about creative tooling in the new world of generative AI

How Artificial Intelligence Constrains the Human Experience

AbstractArtificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies are transforming many consumption activities, powering breakthroughs that expand the human experience by enhancing human capabilities, performance, and creativity. While this explains the consumer enthusiasm and rapid adoption of these technologies, AI systems can also have the opposite effect: reducing and constraining the range of experiences that are available to consumers. This article examines the mechanisms through which AI can constrain the human experience, considering individual, interpersonal, and societal processes. Our analysis uncovers a complex interplay between the advantages of AI and its inadvertent negative repercussions, which potentially restrict human autonomy, self-identity, relational dynamics, and social behavior. In this article, we propose three different mechanisms at the core of these constraining forces: parametric reductionism, agency transference, and regulated expression. Our exploration of these mechanisms highlights the risks connected to system design and points to questions and implications for future researchers and policymakers.

Combinatorial Creativity

Combinatorial creativity recombines existing ideas to spark novel, valuable innovations in cognition, AI, and design.

AI is turning research into a scientific monoculture

Generative AI deserves scientific attention. But the rush to study it is producing a feedback loop of topical and methodological convergence, flattening scientific imagination and crowding out the pluralism needed to keep research adaptive, resilient, and intellectually generative.

In spite of hype, many companies are moving cautiously when it comes to generative AI | TechCrunch

Companies are extremely interested in generative AI as vendors push potential benefits, but turning that desire from a proof of concept into a working product is proving much more challenging.

Thinking is not only writing

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) raises valid concerns about the loss of cognitive work embedded in scholarly writing. However, universally dismissing AI-assisted drafting mistakenly conflates writing with thinking itself and reinforces existing inequities in who can transform their ideas into polished text. Academic authorship should depend more on the depth and creativity of human intellectual engagement than on the medium through which first drafts are produced.

Lower Artificial Intelligence Literacy Predicts Greater AI Receptivity

As artificial intelligence (AI) transforms society, understanding factors that influence AI receptivity is increasingly important. The current research investigates which types of consumers have greater AI receptivity. Contrary to expectations revealed in four surveys, cross-country data and six additional studies find that people with lower AI literacy are typically more receptive to AI. This lower literacy–greater receptivity link is not explained by differences in perceptions of AI's capability, ethicality, or feared impact on humanity. Instead, this link occurs because people with lower AI literacy are more likely to perceive AI as magical and experience feelings of awe in the face of AI's execution of tasks that seem to require uniquely human attributes. In line with this theorizing, the lower literacy–higher receptivity link is mediated by perceptions of AI as magical and is moderated among tasks not assumed to require distinctly human attributes. These findings suggest that companies may benefit from shifting their marketing efforts and product development toward consumers with lower AI literacy. In addition, efforts to demystify AI may inadvertently reduce its appeal.

Lower Artificial Intelligence Literacy Predicts Greater AI Receptivity

As artificial intelligence (AI) transforms society, understanding factors that influence AI receptivity is increasingly important. The current research investigates which types of consumers have greater AI receptivity. Contrary to expectations revealed in four surveys, cross-country data and six additional studies find that people with lower AI literacy are typically more receptive to AI. This lower literacy–greater receptivity link is not explained by differences in perceptions of AI's capability, ethicality, or feared impact on humanity. Instead, this link occurs because people with lower AI literacy are more likely to perceive AI as magical and experience feelings of awe in the face of AI's execution of tasks that seem to require uniquely human attributes. In line with this theorizing, the lower literacy–higher receptivity link is mediated by perceptions of AI as magical and is moderated among tasks not assumed to require distinctly human attributes. These findings suggest that companies may benefit from shifting their marketing efforts and product development toward consumers with lower AI literacy. In addition, efforts to demystify AI may inadvertently reduce its appeal.

Augmented human intelligence goes beyond the AGI mirage

This paper argues that contemporary Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) approaches face significant challenges that make Augmented Human Intelligence (AHI) a more promising and practically beneficial alternative. Drawing on phenomenological insights from Peter-Paul Verbeek’s technological mediation theory and comprehensive empirical evidence from decades of AI development, we argue that current AGI projects encounter recurring difficulties that may stem from attempting to replace rather than enhance human intelligence. Through analysis of mediation theory’s core concepts, systematic examination of recent AI performance data, and comprehensive review of human–AI collaboration studies, we show why augmentation approaches consistently outperform replacement attempts across domains requiring creativity, judgment, and contextual understanding. Prioritizing sophisticated AHI development over AGI pursuit represents not a compromise but a fundamental reorientation toward more effective and ethically sound approaches to artificial intelligence that better serve human flourishing.

Value Pairs: A New Way of Approaching Product Development

How AI-enabled teams can change how we think about product development

Computational hermeneutics: evaluating generative AI as a cultural technology

Generative AI (GenAI) systems are increasingly recognized as cultural technologies, yet current evaluation frameworks often treat culture as a variable to be measured rather than fundamental to the system's operation. Drawing on hermeneutic theory from the humanities, we argue that GenAI systems function as "context machines" that must inherently address three interpretive challenges: situatedness (meaning only emerges in context), plurality (multiple valid interpretations coexist), and ambiguity (interpretations naturally conflict). We present computational hermeneutics as an emerging framework offering an interpretive account of what GenAI systems do, and how they might do it better. We offer three principles for hermeneutic evaluation—that benchmarks should be iterative, not one-off; include people, not just machines; and measure cultural context, not just model output. This perspective offers a nascent paradigm for designing and evaluating contemporary AI systems: shifting from standardized questions about accuracy to contextual ones about meaning.

Find an Artist Who Doesn't Use Generative AI | Hire Human Artists

Looking for an artist for your next project? Our human artist directory is full of over 400 artists who have pledged not to use gen AI.

Generative AI Meets Open-Ended Survey Responses: Research Participant Use of AI and Homogenization

The growing popularity of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools presents new challenges for data quality in online surveys and experiments. This study examines participants’ use of large language models to answer open-ended survey questions and describes empirical tendencies in human versus large language model (LLM)-generated text responses. In an original survey of research participants recruited from a popular online platform for sourcing social science research subjects, 34 percent reported using LLMs to help them answer open-ended survey questions. Simulations comparing human-written responses from three pre-ChatGPT studies with LLM-generated text reveal that LLM responses are more homogeneous and positive, particularly when they describe social groups in sensitive questions. These homogenization patterns may mask important underlying social variation in attitudes and beliefs among human subjects, raising concerns about data validity. Our findings shed light on the scope and potential consequences of participants’ LLM use in online research.

AI Research Agents Narrow Scientific Exploration

AI research agents can now generate research ideas, design experiments, run code, and draft papers, raising the possibility of large-scale AI-assisted scientific discovery. Many current agent frameworks explicitly encourage the generation of novel and high-impact ideas. Yet it remains unclear whether AI-assisted ideation broadens scientific exploration or mainly concentrates around existing work. We study AI research agents as scientific search systems. Using four AI research-agent frameworks and six large language models, we generate 37,802 scientific ideas from shared seed literature across citation-defined research areas in AI and machine learning. We then compare the resulting AI ideas against human-authored papers from the same research areas, follow-on human research emerging from the same seed literature, and the seed literature itself. Across experiments, four consistent patterns emerge. First, AI-generated ideas are substantially more concentrated than human-authored papers from the same research areas. Second, AI-generated ideas remain much closer to their starting literature than later human follow-on work does. Third, papers most similar to AI-generated ideas tend to receive lower subsequent citations. Fourth, when AI-generated ideas differ from prior work, the differences arise primarily from recombining existing technical methods rather than introducing fundamentally new research questions. Overall, current AI research agents appear better suited to local elaboration than to broadening scientific exploration.