Penser que quelque chose a été réalisé par l’intelligence artificielle pourrait influencer la perception portée sur cet élément.
Sans pour autant en avoir une appréhension précise et exacte, dans les médias et sur internet, dans le milieu professionnel ou dans cadre plus familial, l’IA – l’intelligence artificielle – est au centre de nombreux sujets de discussions et de prises de position. Mais peu importe le réel niveau de compréhension de ce qui est devenu une sorte de fourre-tout bien pratique, le fait de penser que l’IA est impliquée d’une manière ou d’une autre dans un élément a-t-il un impact sur la manière dont nous percevons ce dit-élément ?
Chronique diffusée le 19 octobre 2023. L’ensemble des chroniques est accessible sur une playlist dédiée.
Pour aller plus loin :
« New psychology research reveals why people prefer human-created artwork to AI-created artwork », par Eric Dolan. Publié sur Psypost, le 03/08/2023. Consulté le 10/10/2023. Lien : https://www.psypost.org/2023/08/new-psychology-research-reveals-why-people-prefer-human-created-artwork-to-ai-created-artwork-167429.
Un autre épisode du podcast en lien :
« La Tête Dans Le Cerveau #222 – Le flouant internet ».
Sources :
Amabile T.M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity : a consensual assessment technique. Journal of personality and social psychology, 43 (5) : 997-1013.
Bellaiche L. et al. (2023). Humans versus AI: whether and why we prefer human-created compared to AI-created artwork. Cognitive research : principles and implications, 8 (42) : 1-22.
Chamberlain R. et al. (2018). Putting the art in artificial : aesthetic responses to computer-generated art. Psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts, 12 (2) : 177-192.
Chatterjee A. (2022). Art in an age of artificial intelligence. Frontiers in psychology, 13 (1024449) : 1-9.
Chatterjee A. et Vartanian O. (2016). Neuroscience of aesthetics. Annals of the new york academy of sciences, 1369 (1) : 172-194.
Chiarella S. et al. (2022). Investigating the negative bias towards artificial intelligence: Effects of prior assignment of AI-authorship on the aesthetic appreciation of abstract paintings. Computers in human behavior, 137 (107406) : 1-12.
Darda K. et al. (2023). Value attributed to text-based archives generated by artificial intelligence. Royal society open science, 10 (2) : 1-17.
Freedberg D. et Gallese V. (2007). Motion, emotion and empathy in esthetic experience. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11 (5) : 197-203.
Gangadharbatla H. (2022). The role of AI attribution knowledge in the evaluation of artwork. Empirical studies of the arts, 40 (2) : 125-142.
Guilford J.P. (1950). Creativity. American psychologist, 5 (9) : 444-454.
Hong J.-W. et al. (2022). Human, I wrote a song for you : an experiment testing the influence of machines’ attributes on the AI-composed music evaluation. Computers in human behavior, 131 (107239) : 1-12.
Hong J.-W. et Curran N.M. (2019). Artificial Intelligence, artists, and art : attitudes toward artwork produced by humans versus Artificial Intelligence. ACM transactions on multimedia computing, communications, and applications, 15 (2) : 1-16.
Israfilzade K. (2020). What’s in a name ? Experiment on the aesthetic judgments of art procured by Artificial Intelligence. Journal of arts, 3 : 143-158.
Kettlewell N. et al. (1990). The effect of subject matter and degree of realism on aesthetic preferences for paintings. Empirical studies of the arts, 8 (1) : 85-93.
Knapp R.H. et Wulff A. (1963). Preferences for abstract and representational art. The journal of social psychology, 60 (2) : 255-262.
Köbis N. et Mossink L. (2021). Artificial Intelligence versus Maya Angelou : experimental evidence that people cannot differentiate AI-generated from human-written poetry. Computers in human behavior, 114 (106553) : 1-13.
Leder H. et al. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British journal of psychology, 95 (4) : 489-508.
Mastandrea S. et al. (2011). The automatic aesthetic evaluation of different art and architectural styles. Psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts, 5 (2) : 126-134.
Mazzone M. et Elgammal A. (2019). Art, creativity, and the potential of Artificial Intelligence. Arts, 8 (26) : 1-9.
Mikalonytė E.S. et Kneer M. (2022). Can Artificial Intelligence make art ? : Folk intuitions as to whether AI-driven robots can be viewed as artists and produce art. ACM transactions on human-robot interaction, 11 (4) : 1-19.
Natale S. et Henrickson L. (2022). The lovelace effect : perceptions of creativity in machines. New media and society, 0 (0) : 1-18.
Palmer S.E. et al. (2013). Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual review of psychology, 64 (1) : 77-107.
Schepman A. et Rodway P. (2020). Initial validation of the general attitudes towards artificial intelligence scale. Computers in human behavior reports, 1 (100014) : 1-13.
Shank D.B. et al. (2022). AI composer bias : listeners like music less when they think it was composed by an AI. Journal of experimental psychology : applied, 29 (3) : 676-692.
Tröndle M. et al. (2014). Is this art ? An experimental study on visitors’ judgement of contemporary art. Cultural sociology, 8 (3) : 310-332.
Wu Y. et al. (2020). Investigating american and chinese subjects’ explicit and implicit perceptions of AI-generated artistic work. Computers in human behavior, 104 (106186) : 1-11.
Xu K. et al. (2020). Using machine learning to learn machines : a cross-cultural study of users’ responses to machine-generated artworks. Journal of broadcasting and electronic media, 64 (4) : 566-591.
Source image :
Jason Leung – Un fond abstrait bleu et blanc avec des cercles photo (2019). https://unsplash.com/fr/photos/UMncYEfO9-U
OpenEdition vous propose de citer ce billet de la manière suivante :
Christophe Rodo (19 octobre 2023). La biaisante IA (épisode 254). Cerveau en argot. Consulté le 11 décembre 2024 à l’adresse https://doi.org/10.58079/mkox