IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2610.14984.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Difang Huang
  • Shumin Yu
  • Fadong Chen
  • Weihua Zhou

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Difang Huang & Shumin Yu & Fadong Chen & Weihua Zhou, 2026. "Too Late to Prune: Generative AI, the Screen, and Team Creative Decisions," Papers 2610.14984, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2610.14984
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.14984
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cooper, Robert G., 1990. "Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 44-54.
    2. Weitzman, Martin L, 1979. "Optimal Search for the Best Alternative," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(3), pages 641-654, May.
    3. Lennart Meincke & Gideon Nave & Christian Terwiesch, 2025. "ChatGPT decreases idea diversity in brainstorming," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 9(6), pages 1107-1109, June.
    4. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    5. Yang, Cathy L & Borah, Abhishek & Rhodes, Brendon & Kireyev, Pavel, 2025. "Large Language Models Augment or Substitute Human Experts in Idea Screening," HEC Research Papers Series 1597, HEC Paris, revised 21 Oct 2025.
    6. Anil R. Doshi & Oliver P. Hauser, 2023. "Generative artificial intelligence enhances creativity but reduces the diversity of novel content," Papers 2312.00506, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    7. John A. List & Azeem M. Shaikh & Yang Xu, 2019. "Multiple hypothesis testing in experimental economics," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(4), pages 773-793, December.
    8. Ning Li & Huaikang Zhou & Kris Mikel-Hong, 2024. "Generative AI Enhances Team Performance and Reduces Need for Traditional Teams," Papers 2405.17924, arXiv.org.
    9. Zenan Chen & Jason Chan, 2024. "Large Language Model in Creative Work: The Role of Collaboration Modality and User Expertise," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(12), pages 9101-9117, December.
    10. Anil R. Doshi & J. Jason Bell & Emil Mirzayev & Bart S. Vanneste, 2025. "Generative artificial intelligence and evaluating strategic decisions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 583-610, March.
    11. Kevin J. Boudreau & Nicola Lacetera & Karim R. Lakhani, 2011. "Incentives and Problem Uncertainty in Innovation Contests: An Empirical Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 843-863, May.
    12. Dawei Wang & Difang Huang & Haipeng Shen & Brian Uzzi, 2026. "A large-scale comparison of divergent creativity in humans and large language models," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 10(3), pages 531-540, March.
    13. Julian De Freitas & Ayelet Israeli & Gideon Nave & Artem Timoshenko & Olivier Toubia, 2026. "Innovating with Generative AI: A Human Bottleneck Framework," Papers 2608.07504, arXiv.org.
    14. Erik Brynjolfsson & Danielle Li & Lindsey Raymond, 2025. "Generative AI at Work," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 140(2), pages 889-942.
    15. Léonard Boussioux & Jacqueline N. Lane & Miaomiao Zhang & Vladimir Jacimovic & Karim R. Lakhani, 2024. "The Crowdless Future? Generative AI and Creative Problem-Solving," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(5), pages 1589-1607, September.
    16. Laura J. Kornish & Karl T. Ulrich, 2011. "Opportunity Spaces in Innovation: Empirical Analysis of Large Samples of Ideas," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 107-128, January.
    17. Hauser, John R & Wernerfelt, Birger, 1990. "An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(4), pages 393-408, March.
    18. Young, Alwyn, 2019. "Channeling Fisher: randomization tests and the statistical insignificance of seemingly significant experimental results," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 101401, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. J. J. McCall, 1970. "Economics of Information and Job Search," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(1), pages 113-126.
    20. Fabrizio Dell’Acqua & Charles Ayoubi & Hila Lifshitz & Raffaella Sadun & Ethan Mollick & Lilach Mollick & Yi Han & Jeff Goldman & Hari Nair & Stew Taub & Karim R. Lakhani, 2026. "The Cybernetic Teammate: A Field Experiment on Generative AI and Teamwork," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(4), pages 1217-1242, July.
    21. Fabrizio Dell’Acqua & Edward McFowland & Ethan Mollick & Hila Lifshitz & Katherine C. Kellogg & Saran Rajendran & Lisa Krayer & François Candelon & Karim R. Lakhani, 2026. "Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier: Field Experimental Evidence of the Effects of Artificial Intelligence on Knowledge Worker Productivity and Quality," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(2), pages 403-423, March.
    22. Ely Dahan & Haim Mendelson, 2001. "An Extreme-Value Model of Concept Testing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 102-116, January.
    23. Laura J. Kornish & Jeremy Hutchison‐Krupat, 2017. "Research on Idea Generation and Selection: Implications for Management of Technology," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 26(4), pages 633-651, April.
    24. Michelle Vaccaro & Abdullah Almaatouq & Thomas Malone, 2024. "When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(12), pages 2293-2303, December.
    25. Alwyn Young, 2019. "Channeling Fisher: Randomization Tests and the Statistical Insignificance of Seemingly Significant Experimental Results," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 557-598.
    26. Karan Girotra & Christian Terwiesch & Karl T. Ulrich, 2010. "Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 591-605, April.
    27. Byung Cheol Lee & Jaeyeon (Jae) Chung, 2024. "An empirical investigation of the impact of ChatGPT on creativity," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(10), pages 1906-1914, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhou, Yiyong & Liu, Qinghan & Huang, Jihao & Li, Guiquan, 2026. "Creative scar without generative AI: Individual creativity fails to sustain while homogeneity keeps climbing," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    2. Christian Terwiesch & Lennart Meincke & Karan Girotra & Ethan Mollick & Gideon Nave & Karl T. Ulrich, 2026. "AI and Its Impact on Creativity and Diversity: An Empirical Study of LLM-Generated Product Ideas," Papers 2607.27553, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2026.
    3. Pedota, Mattia & Cicala, Francesco & Basti, Alessio, 2025. "Human agents, generative AI, and innovation: A formal model of hybrid creative process," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    4. Simon Kleinert & Silvio Vismara, 2026. "The reconfiguration of entrepreneurship: how digital platforms and artificial intelligence transform the entrepreneurial process," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 16(1), pages 1-24, March.
    5. Laura J. Kornish & Karl T. Ulrich, 2011. "Opportunity Spaces in Innovation: Empirical Analysis of Large Samples of Ideas," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 107-128, January.
    6. Pedota, Mattia & Cicala, Francesco & Basti, Alessio, 2024. "A Wild Mind with a Disciplined Eye: Unleashing Human-GenAI Creativity Through Simulated Entity Elicitation," OSF Preprints 3bn95, Center for Open Science.
    7. Barry L. Bayus, 2013. "Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 226-244, June.
    8. Julian De Freitas & Ayelet Israeli & Gideon Nave & Artem Timoshenko & Olivier Toubia, 2026. "Innovating with Generative AI: A Human Bottleneck Framework," Papers 2608.07504, arXiv.org.
    9. Ozdenoren, Emre & Erkurt, Murat, 2026. "Search Contests," CEPR Discussion Papers 21470, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
      • Emre Ozdenoren & Murat Erkurt, 2026. "Search Contests," Papers 2603.20683, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2026.
    10. Laura J. Kornish & Jeremy Hutchison‐Krupat, 2017. "Research on Idea Generation and Selection: Implications for Management of Technology," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 26(4), pages 633-651, April.
    11. Léonard Boussioux & Jacqueline N. Lane & Miaomiao Zhang & Vladimir Jacimovic & Karim R. Lakhani, 2024. "The Crowdless Future? Generative AI and Creative Problem-Solving," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(5), pages 1589-1607, September.
    12. Emma von Essen & Marieke Huysentruyt & Topi Miettinen, 2019. "Exploration in Teams and the Encouragement Effect: Theory and Evidence," Economics Working Papers 2019-10, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    13. Aaron Chatterji & Felipe A. Csaszar & James Evans & Teppo Felin & Jessica Hullman & Karim R. Lakhani & Mari Sako & Todd Zenger, 2026. "Can AI Do Strategy? A Dialogue and Debate," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(1), pages 16-30, March.
    14. repec:osf:osfxxx:3bn95_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Pattaraphon Kenny Wongchamcharoen & Kris Gulati & Min Min Fong & Abhishek Nagaraj, 2026. "CentaurBench: Benchmarking LLM Capabilities on Augmenting vs. Automating Real-World Work Tasks," Papers 2608.18554, arXiv.org.
    16. Svenja C. Sommer & Elliot Bendoly & Stylianos Kavadias, 2020. "How Do You Search for the Best Alternative? Experimental Evidence on Search Strategies to Solve Complex Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(3), pages 1395-1420, March.
    17. Sanjiv Erat & Vish Krishnan, 2012. "Managing Delegated Search Over Design Spaces," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(3), pages 606-623, March.
    18. Emma von Essen & Marieke Huysentruyt & Topi Miettinen, 2020. "Exploration in Teams and the Encouragement Effect: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(12), pages 5861-5885, December.
    19. Andreoni, James & Serra-Garcia, Marta, 2021. "Time inconsistent charitable giving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    20. Pavel Kireyev, 2016. "Markets for Ideas: Prize Structure, Entry Limits, and the Design of Ideation Contests," Harvard Business School Working Papers 16-129, Harvard Business School.
    21. Hossain, Mokter, 2018. "Motivations, challenges, and opportunities of successful solvers on an innovation intermediary platform," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 67-73.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2610.14984. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.