Open-source software communities are a form of digital public infrastructure that not only produces code, but also generates public knowledge and interpersonal relationships through visible collaboration. Generative coding agents (CAs) are an advanced tool to improve development efficiency while shifting part of activities from public human interaction to private human-agent loops. We study this shift using an LLM-based multi-agent simulation initialized with real GitHub data from 1,084 active developers and their repository relationships. After a warm-up with historical commits, we branch the same community state into parallel No-CA and CA conditions for 4-week simulations. CA introduction increases planned and completed tasks by 34.0% and 39.0%, respectively, and reduces median completion time from 45 to 20 minutes. However, adoption reaches only 26.0%, and the gains concentrate among developers who are already more active and well connected. CAs also restructure task execution pathways. Direct human-human interaction declines from 32.4% to 11.6%, while CA-involved modes increase to 57.3%, including 40.3% completed through CA-assisted self-loops. Public knowledge generated under CA condition also provides less support for later tasks. On a standardized retrieval benchmark, the CA corpus achieves 22.3% knowledge coverage, far below the 81.1% achieved by the real-human corpus, and requires more retrieval steps with a lower success rate. These results reveal a productivity-public knowledge tension: coding agents increase technical production, but more work shifts to agent-mediated or private loops, leaving public records less useful to future contributors.
Diverse human groups produce diverse ideas, the raw material of innovation. Generative AI challenges this engine twice over: everyday AI assistance may homogenize what diverse people create, and AI-simulated diversity may replace the people altogether. We tested both challenges in a preregistered creative metaphor experiment with native (L1) and non-native (L2) English writers, who wrote without AI, with AI-generated ideas (AI ideation), or with AI refining their own ideas (AI refinement). L2 writers contributed more collective diversity than L1 writers, with native-language ideation showing the most diverse pools. AI ideation compressed collective diversity for everyone and left the L2 advantage undetectable, whereas AI refinement preserved both. We then simulated the entire writer pool using personas built from participants' real backgrounds, three model families, native-language prompting, and elevated sampling temperatures. Every simulated pool fell below every human pool, and pushing models further induced diversity only through degenerate text. However, at the individual level, AI ideation raised writers' ratings, pitting private incentives against the collective good, except when L2 writers used their native language, which benefited both. Human diversity remains a valuable creative resource that current AI cannot simulate or sustain; the design of human-AI collaborative workflows determines whether it survives.
As AI-driven Decision Makers (ADMs) influence our socioeconomic reality, their roles in both enhancing efficiency and amplifying the social biases have drawn attention. In this paper, we revisit the nuances of long-term `fairness' achievable by an ADM, specifically in the context of a credit lending induced wealth process. The literature on long-term fairness mostly (a) considers passive environments, i.e. the outcome of a predictor does not change the population's behaviour, and (b) measures bias in terms of disparity in instantaneous predictions rather than the downstream equity. These are not true for modern ADMs, like credit lenders. To address these caveats, we first formalise the wealth dynamics induced by a loan approving ADM interacting with a multi-demographic population as a performative Markov Decision Process with ADM level and social outcome level reward functions. Then, we mitigate the absence of such a performative test-bed by developing Eutopia: a lending-process simulator enabled with a novel performative data generator to learn long-term fair strategies. Finally, we test performative and classical RL algorithms with different fairness-aware and utilitarian utilities. Experimental results show that (a) learning with performative dynamics lead to better long-term efficiency and equity, and (b) learning with well-designed fairness-aware utility evaluated on social outcomes induces better efficiency, equity, and inclusivity.