3 ms·
The title is misleading, this study doesn't even attempt to actually answer preference of human vs AI written stories. It didn't even involve any human written
by advisedwang 2y ago
The title is misleading, this study doesn't even attempt to actually answer preference of human vs AI written stories. It didn't even involve any human written stories!
All this study shows is that people rate an AI generate story worse when they know it's AI and say they'd pay less for it. Who knows what the relative rating or "payment" for a actual human written story would have been!
- izzydata 2y agoIt reminds me of a genre of videos that would have you believe something is completely spontaneous and natural, but is actually entirely staged. The thing is only interesting under the assumption that it wasn't staged so they trick you into thinking it isn't. Then someone in the comments inevitably says it is fake and everyone says of course it is. It's a skit, but it is still funny. Knowing it is written by a computer and not by a human lowers the value of it regardless of how difficult it is to distinguish in my opinion. Thoughts and expressions by fellow humans gives something value and being written by a computer takes away a lot if not all of the purpose behind art.
- thayne 2y agoCame here to say exactly this.
- ninetyninenine 2y agoIt’s good. Because it shows human bias. They have to construct the study independent of the actual quality of the writing. And it’s clear here that many people are just biased.
- advisedwang 2y agoIt's an ok study to show people are predisposed to assume AI works are bad. However the headline and article imply that people are wrong that the quality of the writing is bad. So a study "independent of the actual quality of the writing" goes directly against the conclusion they are pushing here. (the paper itself does not have this issue).