Sound Research WIKINDX
Sound Research WIKINDX |
|
 |
|
Bellaiche, L., Shahi, R., Turpin, M. H., Ragnhildstveit, A., Sprockett, S., & Barr, N., et al. (2023). Humans versus AI: Whether and why we prefer human-created compared to AI-created artwork. Added by: alexb44 (3/6/25, 7:31 AM) Last edited by: alexb44 (3/6/25, 7:40 AM) |
 |
| Resource type: Miscellaneous DOI: 10.1186/s41235-023-00499-6 BibTeX citation key: Bellaiche2023 Email resource to friend View all bibliographic details  |
Categories: AI/Machine Learning Creators: Barr, Bellaiche, Christensen, Ragnhildstveit, Seli, Shahi, Sprockett, Turpin |
Views: 6/6
|
| Abstract |
|
With the recent proliferation of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models capable of mimicking human artworks, AI creations might soon replace products of human creativity, although skeptics argue that this outcome is unlikely. One possible reason this may be unlikely is that, independent of the physical properties of art, we place great value on the imbuement of the human experience in art. An interesting question, then, is whether and why people might prefer human-compared to AI-created artworks. To explore these questions, we manipulated the purported creator of pieces of art by randomly assigning a “Human-created” or “AI-created” label to paintings actually created by AI, and then assessed participants’ judgements of the artworks across four rating criteria (Liking, Beauty, Profundity, and Worth). Study 1 found increased positive judgements for human- compared to AI-labelled art across all criteria. Study 2 aimed to replicate and extend Study 1 with additional ratings (Emotion, Story, Meaningful, Effort, and Time to create) intended to elucidate why people more-positively appraise Human-labelled artworks. The main findings from Study 1 were replicated, with narrativity (Story) and perceived effort behind artworks (Effort) moderating the label effects (“Human-created” vs. “AI-created”), but only for the sensory-level judgements (Liking, Beauty). Positive personal attitudes toward AI moderated label effects for more-communicative judgements (Profundity, Worth). These studies demonstrate that people tend to be negatively biased against AI-created artworks relative to purportedly human-created artwork, and suggest that knowledge of human engagement in the artistic process contributes positively to appraisals of art.
Added by: alexb44 Last edited by: alexb44 |
| Notes |
|
Concerns regarding validity:
"Firstly, we cannot be certain of how well we deceived participants with some of our labels (i.e., those that were false in cases wherein the labels indicated that the artworks were created by a human), although we can nevertheless minimize these concerns (at least to some extent) by considering the past literature showing participants’ inability to discriminate between AI- and human-created paintings (Chamberlain et al., 2018; Gangadharbatla, 2022)." p. 19
Chamberlain, R., Mullin, C., Scheerlinck, B., & Wagemans, J. (2018). Putting the art in artificial: Aesthetic responses to computer-generated art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10. 1037/aca0000136 Gangadharbatla, H. (2022). The role of AI attribution knowledge in the evaluation of artwork. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 40(2), 125–142. https://doi. org/10.1177/0276237421994697 Added by: alexb44 Last edited by: alexb44 |
| Quotes |
|
pp.19–20
"Firstly, people preferred (purportedly) human-created art over AI-created art. This preference was particularly evident for criteria that communicated deeper meanings of the art (e.g., Profundity, Worth). On more-sensory levels, the difference between human- and AI-labelled art was much more modest, though significant differences were nonetheless observed. As such, AI-labelled art can still be greatly appreciated (almost as much as human-labelled art) when people utilize varying levels of engagement processes. Interestingly, the sensory versus communicative-level judgement processes were further distinguished by different interaction processes: the former were moderated by rates of story-telling and perceived effort (though in opposite directions), while the latter were moderated by personal positive attitudes toward AI. These interactions shed light on when and why individuals may appreciate art made by different creators, as posed in our initial research question, and also reflect how different stages of multi-processing models of aesthetics may interact with one another. In conclusion, people tend to perceive art as reflecting a human-specific experience, though creator labels seem to mediate the ability to derive deeper evaluations from art. Thus, creative products like art may be achieved — according to human raters—by non-human AI models, but only to a limited extent that still protects a valued anthropocentrism." Added by: alexb44 |