Study reveals people value AI stories equally to human ones

A new study has found that people's stated preferences for stories written by humans do not always match their behavior when choosing between human and AI-generated works. Participants were equally willing to invest time and money in both types of stories. In the study, researchers had over 650 participants read a short story generated by OpenAI's ChatGPT 4. Half the participants were told the story was written by AI, while the other half believed it was written by the acclaimed author Jason Brown. Participants rated the story on various aspects, including predictability and emotional engagement, and expressed their willingness to pay to continue reading. The results showed that the group aware it was an AI story rated it more negatively, citing issues like originality and emotional depth. However, their willingness to spend money and time on the story was similar to those who thought it was human-written. About 40% of participants admitted they would pay less for a story if they knew it was AI-generated, demonstrating a gap between their perceptions and their actual spending behavior. This challenges earlier studies that suggested a clear preference for human-produced works. The research highlights the complex future for human creators, especially as AI-produced content becomes cheaper and more prevalent. With AI-generated books increasingly entering the market, there are questions about the effectiveness of labeling stories as human or AI-made. Future studies may explore potential backlash against AI-generated art, especially if job losses in creative industries occur. Overall, the findings indicate that despite a preference for human creativity, many consumers are not willing to pay more for it.