I came across this study this weekend in one the newsletters I peruse from time to time. The study was apparently published more than two years ago.

I saw the study in a post about someone who recently went viral tricking people on X with a Monet. He told people it was AI and asked why it was not better than a real Monet. Well, the catch was that the ‘fake AI’ Monet was an actual Monet.

The controversy interests me because I see both colleagues and students who are very distrustful of AI generally. I’ve been all in on AI since 2022, but I have come to realize there are many negative aspects of the technology, not the least of which is the energy demand and the potential for human extinction. No small things, for sure!

That said, as I’ve noted before, I use AI and I appreciate what it can do for me. The fact that I can relate to the enthusiasm for AI, despite the obvious issues it creates, set me up to enjoy alll the haters getting owned online for criticizing a real Monet just because they thought it was AI derived. Seeing this also made me smile because at this point in my journey I’m sick and tired of people being against issues they don’t know much about.

The study makes the point that people are specifically biased against AI-created art. To quote the abstract, “Participants were unable to consistently distinguish between human and AI-created images. Furthermore, despite generally preferring the AI-generated artworks over human-made ones, the participants displayed a negative bias against AI-generated artworks when subjective perception of source attribution was considered, thus rating as less preferable the artworks perceived more as AI-generated, independently on their true source."

For me, this is a reminder to think more slowly and deliberately. And to verify before jumping to conclusions. Often, we cannot believe our eyes (or our ears, or our media, or other people). AI’s rapid improvement makes this even more necessary.