ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Human perception of art in the age of artificial intelligence.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- An AI-generated art evaluation model that integrates computational aesthetics and cognitive psychology.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Beyond ethics and aesthetics: perceived lay theory violations and agency disruption in AI-generated art.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- How undergraduate art students evaluate ChatGPT-generated art interpretations: perceived quality, bias-related judgment, and rating structure.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The association between perceived usefulness of AI-generated art tools and self-reported creative design performance: a parallel mediation model of artistic perception, cognitive engagement, and aesthetic judgment.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Is employment anxiety among vocal music students associated with AI replacement concerns? The roles of AI anxiety and vocal-performance replacement perception.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- AI Images vs. Real Photographs: Investigating Visual Recognition and Perception.Journal of eye movement research · 2025Article
- GPT is all you need.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent advancement in Artificial Intelligence (AI) has rendered image-synthesis models capable of producing complex artworks that appear nearly indistinguishable from human-made works. Here we present a quantitative assessment of human perception and preference for art generated by OpenAI's DALL·E 2, a leading AI tool for art creation. Participants were presented with pairs of artworks, one human-made and one AI-generated, in either a preference-choice task or an origin-discrimination task. Results revealed a significant preference for AI-generated artworks. At the same time, a separate group of participants were above-chance at detecting which artwork within the pair was generated by AI, indicating a perceptible distinction between human and artificial creative works. These results raise questions about how a shift in art preference to favour synthetic creations might impact the way we think about art and its value to human society, prompting reflections on authorship, authenticity, and human creativity in the era of generative AI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.