Last month, over 11,000 people took Astral Codex Ten's survey to see if they could they tell the difference between 50 human-made art and AI-generated images. The results were humbling for humans, especially ones who professed a loathing for AI art.
Most participants stumbled through the test, scoring just 60% — barely better than flipping a coin. What tripped them up? Our preconceptions about art styles, it turns out, are deeply ingrained. When people saw classic Impressionist paintings, they confidently declared them human-made (and were often wrong). When they encountered digital art, they quickly labeled it as AI (and were frequently mistaken).
Perhaps the most ironic finding was about people who claimed to despise AI art. When these AI critics picked their favorite pieces without knowing their origin, they consistently chose AI-generated works. Even among those who rated their hatred of AI art at maximum levels, their top two favorite pieces were created by machines.
But not everyone was so easily fooled. Professional artists showed a keener eye. They scored notably higher at 66-68%, with a select few achieving near-perfect scores. These artists could spot subtle inconsistencies that escaped most viewers — details like illogical architectural elements or incoherent wear patterns that betrayed an AI's hand.
The experiment suggests that our judgments about art might have less to do with what we're seeing and more to do with what we believe about its origins.
Previously:
• Living hybrids: AI art that captivates and unsettles
• Dune subreddit bans AI art
• Illustrator discovers her art was used to train an AI art generator
• Artist James Gurney's fake-out videos still good
• Marvel defends using AI art for Secret Invasion's opening titles
• Federal judge says AI-generated artwork can't be copyrighted, because of monkeys
