Curated by THEOUTPOST
On Wed, 19 Mar, 12:08 AM UTC
2 Sources
[1]
People say they prefer stories written by humans over AI-generated works, yet new study suggests that's not quite true
https://theconversation.com/people-say-they-prefer-stories-written-by-humans-over-ai-generated-works-yet-new-study-suggests-thats-not-quite-true-251347 People say they prefer a short story written by a human over one composed by artificial intelligence, yet most still invest the same amount of time and money reading both stories regardless of whether it is labeled as AI-generated. That was the main finding of a study we conducted recently to test whether this preference of humans over AI in creative works actually translates into consumer behavior. Amid the coming avalanche of AI-generated work, it is a question of real livelihoods for the millions of people worldwide employed in creative industries. To investigate, we asked OpenAI's ChatGPT 4 to generate a short story in the style of the critically acclaimed fiction author Jason Brown. We then recruited a nationally representative sample of over 650 people and offered participants US$3.50 to read and assess the AI-generated story. Crucially, only half the participants were told that the story was written by AI, while the other half was misled into believing it was the work of Jason Brown. After reading the first half of the AI-generated story, participants were asked to rate the quality of the work along various dimensions, such as whether they found it predictable, emotionally engaging, evocative and so on. We also measured participants' willingness to pay in order to read to the end of the story in two ways: how much of their study compensation they'd be willing to give up, and how much time they'd agree to spend transcribing some text we gave them. So, were there differences between the two groups? The short answer: yes. But a closer analysis reveals some startling results. To begin with, the group that knew the story was AI-generated had a much more negative assessment of the work, rating it more harshly on dimensions like predictability, authenticity and how evocative it is. These results are largely in keeping with a nascent but growing body of research that shows bias against AI in areas like visual art, music and poetry. Nonetheless, participants were ready to spend the same amount of money and time to finish reading the story whether or not it was labeled as AI. Participants also did not spend less time on average actually reading the AI-labeled story. When asked afterward, almost 40% of participants said they would have paid less if the same story was written by AI versus a human, highlighting that many are not aware of the discrepancies between their subjective assessments and actual choices. Why it matters Our findings challenge past studies showing people favor human-produced works over AI-generated ones. At the very least, this research doesn't appear to be a reliable indicator of people's willingness to pay for human-created art. The potential implications for the future of human-created work are profound, especially in market conditions in which AI-generated work can be orders of magnitude cheaper to produce. Even though artificial intelligence is still in its infancy, AI-made books are already flooding the market, recently prompting the authors guild to instate its own labeling guidelines. Our research raises questions whether these labels are effective in stemming the tide. What's next Attitudes toward AI are still forming. Future research could investigate whether there will be a backlash against AI-generated creative works, especially if people witness mass layoffs. After all, similar shifts occurred in the wake of mass industrialization, such as the arts and crafts movement in the late 19th century, which emerged as a response to the growing automation of labor. A related question is whether the market will segment, where some consumers will be willing to pay more based on the process of creation, while others may be interested only in the product. Regardless of how these scenarios play out, our findings indicate that the road ahead for human creative labor might be more uphill than previous research suggested. At the very least, while consumers may hold beliefs about the intrinsic value of human labor, many seem unwilling to put their money where their beliefs are. The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.
[2]
People say they prefer stories written by humans over AI-generated works, yet new study suggests that's not quite true
People say they prefer a short story written by a human over one composed by artificial intelligence, yet most still invest the same amount of time and money reading both stories regardless of whether it is labeled as AI-generated. That was the main finding of a study we conducted recently to test whether this preference of humans over AI in creative works actually translates into consumer behavior. Amid the coming avalanche of AI-generated work, it is a question of real livelihoods for the millions of people worldwide employed in creative industries. To investigate, we asked OpenAI's ChatGPT 4 to generate a short story in the style of the critically acclaimed fiction author Jason Brown. We then recruited a nationally representative sample of over 650 people and offered participants US$3.50 to read and assess the AI-generated story. Crucially, only half the participants were told that the story was written by AI, while the other half was misled into believing it was the work of Jason Brown. After reading the first half of the AI-generated story, participants were asked to rate the quality of the work along various dimensions, such as whether they found it predictable, emotionally engaging, evocative and so on. We also measured participants' willingness to pay in order to read to the end of the story in two ways: how much of their study compensation they'd be willing to give up, and how much time they'd agree to spend transcribing some text we gave them. So, were there differences between the two groups? The short answer: yes. But a closer analysis reveals some startling results. To begin with, the group that knew the story was AI-generated had a much more negative assessment of the work, rating it more harshly on dimensions like predictability, authenticity and how evocative it is. These results are largely in keeping with a nascent but growing body of research that shows bias against AI in areas like visual art, music and poetry. Nonetheless, participants were ready to spend the same amount of money and time to finish reading the story whether or not it was labeled as AI. Participants also did not spend less time on average actually reading the AI-labeled story. When asked afterward, almost 40% of participants said they would have paid less if the same story was written by AI versus a human, highlighting that many are not aware of the discrepancies between their subjective assessments and actual choices. Why it matters Our findings challenge past studies showing people favor human-produced works over AI-generated ones. At the very least, this research doesn't appear to be a reliable indicator of people's willingness to pay for human-created art. The potential implications for the future of human-created work are profound, especially in market conditions in which AI-generated work can be orders of magnitude cheaper to produce. Even though artificial intelligence is still in its infancy, AI-made books are already flooding the market, recently prompting the authors guild to instate its own labeling guidelines. Our research raises questions whether these labels are effective in stemming the tide. What's next Attitudes toward AI are still forming. Future research could investigate whether there will be a backlash against AI-generated creative works, especially if people witness mass layoffs. After all, similar shifts occurred in the wake of mass industrialization, such as the arts and crafts movement in the late 19th century, which emerged as a response to the growing automation of labor. A related question is whether the market will segment, where some consumers will be willing to pay more based on the process of creation, while others may be interested only in the product. Regardless of how these scenarios play out, our findings indicate that the road ahead for human creative labor might be more uphill than previous research suggested. At the very least, while consumers may hold beliefs about the intrinsic value of human labor, many seem unwilling to put their money where their beliefs are.
Share
Share
Copy Link
A new study challenges the notion that people prefer human-written stories over AI-generated ones, revealing that despite claiming a preference for human-authored works, participants showed no significant difference in their willingness to invest time and money in reading stories regardless of the perceived author.
Researchers conducted a groundbreaking study to investigate the perceived preference for human-authored stories over AI-generated content and its impact on consumer behavior. The study utilized OpenAI's ChatGPT 4 to create a short story mimicking the style of acclaimed author Jason Brown. A nationally representative sample of over 650 participants was recruited and offered $3.50 to read and assess the AI-generated story 12.
The participants were divided into two groups: one group was informed that the story was AI-generated, while the other was led to believe it was written by Jason Brown. After reading the first half of the story, participants rated its quality on various dimensions and indicated their willingness to pay to finish reading it.
The study revealed a significant disconnect between stated preferences and actual behavior:
Negative perception of AI-generated content: Participants who knew the story was AI-generated rated it more harshly on dimensions such as predictability, authenticity, and evocativeness 12.
Consistent investment despite labeling: Despite the negative perception, participants were willing to spend the same amount of time and money to finish reading the story, regardless of whether it was labeled as AI-generated or human-authored 12.
Unawareness of behavioral inconsistency: Nearly 40% of participants claimed they would have paid less for an AI-written story, highlighting a lack of awareness of the discrepancy between their subjective assessments and actual choices 12.
The study's findings challenge previous research suggesting a strong preference for human-created works over AI-generated ones. This has significant implications for the future of creative industries:
Market disruption: AI-generated content, being potentially much cheaper to produce, could significantly impact the market for human-created work 12.
Effectiveness of labeling: The study raises questions about the effectiveness of labeling guidelines, such as those recently instated by the authors guild, in influencing consumer behavior 12.
Potential market segmentation: Future research may explore whether the market will segment into consumers willing to pay more for human-created content and those focused solely on the end product 12.
The study opens up several avenues for future research:
Evolving attitudes: Researchers suggest investigating potential backlash against AI-generated creative works, especially in the wake of mass layoffs in creative industries 12.
Historical parallels: The study draws parallels to historical movements like the arts and crafts movement, which emerged in response to industrialization 12.
Long-term impact: The findings indicate that the future for human creative labor may be more challenging than previously thought, as consumers' stated beliefs about the value of human labor may not align with their spending behavior 12.
This study provides crucial insights into the complex relationship between AI-generated content, consumer preferences, and market behavior, highlighting the need for continued research in this rapidly evolving field.
A new study reveals that while AI-generated stories can match human-written ones in quality, readers show a bias against content they believe is AI-created, even when it's not.
6 Sources
6 Sources
A recent study explores the impact of AI on creative writing, revealing both benefits and potential drawbacks. While AI tools can enhance productivity, they may also lead to a homogenization of writing styles.
10 Sources
10 Sources
Recent research reveals that AI tools can boost individual creative writing but may reduce diversity in group settings. The study highlights both the potential and limitations of AI in creative processes.
3 Sources
3 Sources
A University of Pittsburgh study reveals that readers prefer AI-generated poetry over human-written poems, raising questions about the future of creative writing and the need for AI transparency in literature.
12 Sources
12 Sources
The Authors Guild introduces a new certification system to identify books written by humans, addressing growing concerns about AI-generated content in literature.
3 Sources
3 Sources
The Outpost is a comprehensive collection of curated artificial intelligence software tools that cater to the needs of small business owners, bloggers, artists, musicians, entrepreneurs, marketers, writers, and researchers.
© 2025 TheOutpost.AI All rights reserved