>> "At the very least, this research doesn’t appear to be a reliable indicator of people’s willingness to pay for human-created art."
It's no secret that what does well commercially and what represents good craft doesn't always have much connection. I'm pro-GenAI and still prefer art made by a person. With the aid of AI is fine, but that connection through the choices they make in creating a thing matters to me.
Looking at the actual paper, the story might have biased the results. Would the results be the same if the story wasn't about a story written with the help of AI?
It should be noted the actual study focus is different from how it's framed by the article: "AI Bias for Creative Writing: Subjective Assessment Versus Willingness to Pay"
It seems like the focus was on commercial writing, not writing overall.
It's no secret that what does well commercially and what represents good craft doesn't always have much connection. I'm pro-GenAI and still prefer art made by a person. With the aid of AI is fine, but that connection through the choices they make in creating a thing matters to me.
Looking at the actual paper, the story might have biased the results. Would the results be the same if the story wasn't about a story written with the help of AI?
It should be noted the actual study focus is different from how it's framed by the article: "AI Bias for Creative Writing: Subjective Assessment Versus Willingness to Pay"
It seems like the focus was on commercial writing, not writing overall.