When people find out that the painting was painted by artificial intelligence, they judge it as less valuable than the one created by man - according to research by specialists from KUL and the University of Lodz.
Such conclusions were reached by Dr. Paweł Fortuna from the Department of Experimental Psychology of the Catholic University of Lublin and Dr. Artur Modliński from the Center for Research on Artificial Intelligence and Cyber Communication at the Faculty of Management of the University of Lodz. They described the results of their research in the article “A(I)rtist or Counterfeiter? Artificial Intelligence as (D) Evaluating Factor on the Art Market ”, published by“ The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society ”(DOI: 10.1080 / 10632921.2021.1887032).
Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms are already creating paintings that are so popular that they are sold at international art auctions. AI is increasingly replacing humans or competing with them in tasks that previously - it seemed - could only be performed by humans. This also applies to artistic works that until recently were only the domain of homo sapiens.
Polish specialists decided to check what is the attitude of people to works of art created by artificial intelligence. "It turns out that we are still quite restrained towards them. When people find out that the painting was painted by AI, they judge it as less valuable than the one created by man" - they say in the information provided to PAP. At the same time, they conclude that artificial intelligence is excluded from the group of creators equal to humans, regardless of the aesthetics and craftsmanship of the work itself.
The first humanoid robots able to paint human portraits using face identification and image reconstruction technologies were constructed in 2005. They created drawings that were confusingly similar to those developed by humans. Since then, new generations of such robots have been created, even more perfect, and their work more and more resembled images created by people.
Dr. Paweł Fortuna and Artur Modliński note that this work was overlooked by experts in the field of art. The breakthrough came when an AI portrait (entitled "Edmond de Belamy") was auctioned for $ 432,500. This was quite a surprise for the art market as artificially generated works had not previously reached similar prices. This incident gave rise to questions about the perception and value of works of art created by artificial intelligence, they emphasize.
Another breakthrough achievement was the creation of entire images by artificial intelligence. Constructed at the University of Leeds and Oxford, the Ai-Da fembot is an AI system hidden in a humanoid shell resembling a woman. You can even observe it while working on a drawing. It is equipped with a camera that captures the image. Appropriate software transforms it, and their effect is applied to the plane thanks to an efficient robot arm.
"Inspired by the messages equating Ai-Da and artists, we decided to check the opinion of people who do not deal with art on a daily basis" - say Dr. Paweł Fortuna and Dr. Artur Modliński.
Uczestniczących w swoich badaniach ochotników podzielili oni na cztery grupy, którym eksponowano ten sam obraz wykonany przez Ai-Da. Połowa uczestników dowiedziała się, że jego autorem jest człowiek, a pozostali, że robot. Zadaniem osób badanych było oszacowanie wartości obrazu w polskich złotych. Dodatkowo badacze wprowadzili standard porównywania, stanowiący kontekst oceny.
In two groups, the participants determined the amount, knowing that a similar picture painted by a human was worth PLN 1,000, and in the next two groups that an identical amount was offered for a work made by a robot. It was expected that if the subjects excluded Ai-Da from the category of human creators, then the price of the painting allegedly painted by a human would be significantly higher when the context of the assessment was the value of the robotic work - than when the standard of comparison would be the amount achieved by the work of the human creator.
It was expected that the participants of this experiment would assume that if 1000 PLN is worth a painting of a robot that is not an artist, then a person should get more for a similar work. With regard to the image allegedly painted by a robot, an inverse relationship was predicted, i.e. the underestimation of the value of the image assessed, when the comparative amount is the price of a human-painted representation, compared to the price offered for robotic works. In this case, it was believed that the conclusions of the respondents would be as follows: "if a person receives PLN 1000 for a painting, a similar work of a robot that is not an artist should be worth less".
The obtained results confirmed these hypotheses.
According to experts, the valorization of the value of a human work in the context of the robot's work and the depreciation of its work in comparison with the image created by homo sapiens suggests that the respondents excluded Ai-Da from the group of human artists. Can this type of opinion change? They believe a lot depends on media coverage as well as a fundamental understanding of creativity. (PAP)
Author: Zbigniew Wojtasiński