Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study examines the narrative diversity of outputs generated by large language models (LLMs) compared to human-written stories, employing a contrastive framework to assess narrative similarity. By analyzing a dataset of human stories and prompts, the authors find that LLMs produce narratives that are significantly more similar to one another than to those created by humans, indicating a convergence towards a generic narrative style. Importantly, common strategies aimed at enhancing diversity, such as negative prompting and temperature scaling, do not effectively mitigate this issue, highlighting a fundamental limitation in current LLMs' storytelling capabilities.
LLMs generate narratives that are alarmingly uniform, lacking the rich diversity found in human storytelling, even after applying common diversity-enhancing techniques.
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled the generation of high-quality prose, yet the question of whether these models are capable of generating diverse outputs remains contested. In this work, we investigate the diversity of LLM-generated stories through the framework of narrative similarity. Using a contrastive framework and a dataset of human-written stories and prompts from r/WritingPrompts, we collect narrative similarity judgments across 10 representative LLMs, utilizing both human evaluations and three different automatic annotation methods. Our findings reveal a consistent trend: LLM-generated narratives are consistently more similar to each other than human-written stories are. We demonstrate that frontier models in particular converge on a ``mean'' generic narrative that approximates individual human stories but lacks the collective diversity of human authors. Finally, we show that common mitigation strategies, including negative prompting and temperature scaling, fail to meaningfully address this homogeneity.