Advertisement

Bias in Perception of Art Produced by Artificial Intelligence

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10902)

Abstract

Some perceive AI as encroaching on human capacities, perchance affecting their perceptions of AI. Applying Schema theory, this study examines whether and to what extent human judges are biased in ascribing “creativity” to the artwork of artificial intelligence. To begin to examine whether an artist’s perceived identity (i.e., as an artificially intelligent agent (AI) or human) might produce different reactions in judging the same artwork, participants blocked by subject characteristics (e.g., graduate, undergraduate) were randomly assigned to one of two types of focus groups. The groups differed only in that they were led to believe the same artwork was the product of a human or the product of an AI artist, triggering very different identity schemas about the artist. Participants were asked to (a) define art; whether AI can (b) make art and (c) if given art (which was the same in all groups) is “art.” Both focus groups types similarly associated art with expression, creativity, providing a message, and broadly conceived the boundaries of what was art. They differed in that the “Human Artist group” had an interactive view of art (perceiving, providing feedback) but the “AI Artist group” said any sense (visual, auditory, etc.) stimulus was art. The “Human Artist group” thought AI could make art while the “AI Artist group” disagreed. Both types of focus groups believed that the given art piece is art. Implications of findings for applications and theory are discussed.

Keywords

Schema theory Artificial intelligence Art evaluation Mixed methodology 

References

  1. Colton, S.: Creativity versus the perception of creativity in computational systems. In: AAAI Spring Symposium: Creative Intelligent Systems, vol. 8, March 2008Google Scholar
  2. Corfman, K.: The importance of member homogeneity to focus group quality. Adv. Consum. Res. 22, 354 (1995)Google Scholar
  3. Dahlin, B.: Critique of the schema concept. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 45(3), 287–300 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dixon, T.: Psychological reactions to crime news portrayals of black criminals: understanding the moderating roles of prior news viewing and stereotype endorsement. Commun. Monogr. 73(2), 162–187 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Emerging technology from the arXiv. Can this computer-generated art pass the turing test? 30 June 2017. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608195/machine-creativity-beats-some-modern-art/. Accessed 29 Nov 2017
  6. Erden, Y.: Could a created being ever be creative? some philosophical remarks on creativity and AI development. Mind. Mach. 20(3), 349–362 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fokt, S.: The cultural definition of art. Metaphilosophy 48(4), 404–429 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gray, A.: The 10 skills you need to thrive in the fourth industrial revolution. World Economic Forum, 19 January 2016. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-10-skills-you-need-to-thrive-in-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/
  9. Harris, R.J., Sanborn, F.W.: A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication, 6th edn. Routledge, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  10. Haynes, R.: From alchemy to artificial intelligence: stereotypes of the scientist in western literature. Publ. Underst. Sci. 12(3), 243–253 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jennings, K.E.: Developing creativity: artificial barriers in artificial intelligence. (Report). Mind. Mach. J. Artif. Intell. Philos. Cogn. Sci. 20(4), 489–501 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jeong, Y., King, C.: Impacts of website context relevance on banner advertisement effectiveness. J. Promot. Manag. 16(3), 247–264 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Morse, J., Niehaus, L., Wolfe, R., Wilkins, S.: The role of the theoretical drive in maintaining validity in mixed-method research. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3(4), 279–291 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. Norman, D.A., Rumelhart, D.E.: The LNR approach to human information processing. Cognition 10(1), 235–240 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Omasta, M.: Artist intention and audience reception in theatre for young audiences. Youth Theatre J. 25(1), 32–50 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Poindexter, P.M., McCombs, M.E.: The Research Phase and The Research Expert. Research in Mass Communication: A Practical Guide. Bedford/St. Martin’s, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  17. Quora: How We Can Embrace the Replacement of Jobs by Artificial Intelligence. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/03/20/how-we-can-embrace-the-replacement-of-jobs-by-artificial-intelligence/#29b62fb02bae. Accessed 20 Mar 2017
  18. Russell, S., Dewey, D., Tegmark, M.: Research priorities for robust and beneficial artificial intelligence. AI Mag. 36(4), 105–114 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Searle, J.: Dualism revisited. J. Physiol. Paris 101(4–6), 169–178 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stecher, B.: This robot is probably more creative than you. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/04/this-artist-is-creating-amazing-artwork-oh-and-its-not-human. Accessed 7 Apr 2017

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations