Title: AI Art Reception: Investigating Initial Anonymity and Empathy as Strategies for Negative Bias Reduction
Abstract
The rapid ascent of AI-generated art raises critical questions for artists working in this medium, particularly regarding the pervasive negative bias it faces among viewers.
In the first component of this two part paper, this study investigates the concept of “initial anonymity,” a novel approach wherein artworks are initially presented without disclosing creator details or backstories. Subsequently, the artist’s identity is revealed. This intriguing method challenges traditional perceptions of art by emphasising the pure aesthetic appeal of AI-generated creations.
In the second component, this study delves into the compelling realm of empathy as a negative bias-mitigation tool for AI created art. Here, the power of a humanoid robot, equipped with a poignant narrative is harnessed to forge emotional connections between viewers and AI-created art. Inspiration is drawn from the remarkable impact of these narratives on social media engagement. Preliminary Appendix.
This pilot study using social media yields promising results, suggesting that both initial anonymity and empathy both exhibit the potential to alleviate negative bias towards AI-generated art. While further rigorous investigation is warranted, these findings pave the way for a deeper understanding of strategies to enhance the reception of this evolving artistic medium.
Keywords
Humanoid robots, Anonymity, AI-generated art, Empathy, Social media engagement, Negative bias, Creator anonymity, Art perception, Emotional connection, Robotic creativity, Human-robot interaction, Art appreciation, Algorithmic art, Emotional engagement, Bias mitigation, Human-like qualities, Criminality, Appeal of Notoriety, AI art evaluation, Artistic expression, Aesthetic appeal, Perception of authenticity, Emotional response, Human-machine collaboration, Human-machine interaction, Ethical considerations,Narrative impact, Mitigating bias, AI art reception, Future research directions.
1. Introduction
Art, a profound reflection of human emotions and experiences, has long been considered a deeply personal and subjective medium. AI-generated art, a product of sophisticated algorithms and machine learning, has emerged as a novel form of artistic expression. However, it has faced mixed receptions, with skepticism and negative bias often stemming from the belief that art must emanate from the depths of human experience and emotion (Bellaiche et al. 2023; Chiarella et al. 2022; Millet et al. 2023). This paper posits two interconnected hypotheses: firstly, that initial anonymity can mitigate negative bias towards AI-generated art, and secondly, that when anonymity is not feasible or ethical, then empathy, especially when fostered through humanoid robots with compelling narratives, can bridge the gap between human viewers and AI art, thus reducing negative bias.
In selecting social media networks as the primary research platform, this study leverages the vibrant and diverse landscape of these online spaces for a dynamic exploration of AI-generated art reception. In today’s art landscape, social media plays an integral role, offering a global, real-time window into diverse voices and artistic preferences (Otieno and Matoke n.d; Snelson 2016).
This choice of research platform aligns with the evolving art consumption landscape, where digital and AI-generated art find their audience. Despite inherent limitations and biases, the study harnesses the strengths of social media to investigate the interplay of initial anonymity, empathy, and bias reduction in AI art perception. It is within these digital realms that the art world expands, and the study ventures to contribute to the evolving relationship between technology, art, and human perception.
2. Background
The advent of AI and machine learning has ushered in an era where algorithms can create art, spanning visual, musical, and literary domains. Yet, the reception of AI art remains complex and multifaceted. While some observers appreciate the novelty and technical innovation of AI-generated artworks, others question the authenticity, emotional depth, and intention behind these creations. The negative bias towards AI-generated art is rooted in the perception that art is deeply connected to the human experience, emotions, and subjectivity. This negative bias arises from the absence of a human creator in the AI art-making process (Ragot, Martin and Cojean 2020; Fortuna and Modliński 2021).
While initial anonymity can potentially mitigate negative bias, it is essential to consider that some information about an artwork can also enhance its perceived value (Cleeremans et al. 2016; Hernando and Campo 2017; Radermecker 2019). Moreover, it may not always be feasible or ethical to present art anonymously, thus leading this paper to explore the role of empathy, especially when facilitated by humanoid robots, in reshaping perceptions of AI-generated art.
PART ONE
3. Anonymity: Mitigating Bias Through Initial Obscurity
The first component of this study investigates the role of initial anonymity in reshaping perceptions of AI-generated art. Prior research has primarily focused on viewer preferences when they possess prior knowledge of the artist’s identity. However, few studies have examined how perceptions change when art is initially presented anonymously and the artist is later revealed. For the full study of this first component (Image Poll #1), see Appendix I.
3.1 Methodology
A social media-based experiment was conducted using two image polls on Facebook to examine preferences for anonymous art and the subsequent influence of then revealing the creator’s identity.
In the first poll, participants chose from four anonymous images, then on receiving artist details they had the option to revise their choices. The second poll presented a new set of anonymous artworks, with undisclosed criminal records of the artists. After revealing the creators, participants were asked to reconsider their choices. This tested if the artists’ notoriety influenced initial selections. The full experiment can be found in Image Polls #1 and #2 in Appendix I and II.
3.11 Image Poll #1
Methodology for Image Poll #1: A Preference-Based Image Survey
The central aim of this survey was to investigate whether information about an artist would influence respondents to alter their preferences for a selected piece of art, particularly after initially choosing it without prior knowledge of the creator. To accomplish this, participants were presented with a collection of anonymous images and tasked with selecting their favourite. Subsequently, respondents were provided with artist information and given the opportunity to reconsider their choices.
Participants: The initial survey was conducted among a group of MA students in a WhatsApp group, followed by the same survey conducted among Facebook friends due to lack of responses in the WhatApp group. In total, 47 respondents participated in the first phase (poll #1), and 19 respondents answered the follow up question to see if choices would be reconsidered in light of additional creator information.
3.12 Survey Design
- Image 2 was the most popular, with 23 votes (49%) – created by a pig called Pigcasso
- Image 1 received 12 votes (25%) – created by Jackson Pollock a human
- Image 4 secured 7 votes (15%) – created by a GAN or text to image computer generation
- Image 3 was the least popular, receiving 5 votes (11%) – created by Ai-Da the humanoid robot that creates art
1. Image Presentation: Four images created by different artists (see above) were presented to the participants. Participants were informed that the images were created by relatively famous artists but were not given any details about the creators at this stage.
2. Initial Choice: Participants were asked to choose one image from the four presented based on their visual preferences. They were instructed to consider factors like colour and composition rather than finer details.
3. Announcement of Creators: After the initial choices were made, the creators of each image were revealed to the participants along with brief information about the artists and their respective works.
4. Revised Choice: Participants were then given the option to change their initial choice based on the newfound knowledge about the creators.
3.13 Data Collection and Analysis
– Data collection involved recording the number of votes each image received in both the initial and revised choice phases.
– Comments from participants were also collected to understand their thought processes. See Appendix I.
3.14 Results and Insights
– The results indicated that Image 2 (by Pigcasso, the pig) was the most popular in both the initial and revised choice phases.
– This suggests that the visual appeal of the artwork itself played a significant role in its popularity, regardless of the artist’s identity.
– The fact that Image 2 remained the most popular even after the artist was revealed suggests that art can be appreciated without biases associated with the artist.
– Respondents expressed a level of unbiased judgment, emphasising that the artwork itself was the primary determinant of their choice.
– Different images resonated with different participants, showcasing diverse tastes within the group.
– The popularity of abstract art (Image 2) compared to a portrait (Image 3) implies that abstract art in this poll had broader appeal when considered without the context of the artist.
– Most participants refused to change their minds about their chosen image even when the artist’s identity was revealed, indicating emotional investiture in their original preferences. See Appendix I.
3.15 Limitations
– The limited sample size in the second phase of the survey (19 respondents) may have affected the overall representativeness of the results.
– The survey relied on self-reported preferences, which are inherently subjective.
– Participants were predominantly individuals known to the researcher, which may introduce bias.
3.2 Conclusions from Poll #1
The initial poll revealed intriguing insights into the impact of anonymity on art perception. Out of 47 respondents, Image 2, created by a pig named Pigcasso, garnered the most votes, suggesting a strong appeal based on visual aesthetics alone. The results suggest that art’s intrinsic qualities can captivate viewers, regardless of the artist’s identity (Vassiliou 2017). Further research could delve into the impact of artist background on art preferences to gain a more comprehensive understanding of this dynamic. Notably, even when respondents learned about the creators after making their choices, few revised their selections. This implies that the aesthetics of the art held more weight in their choices than the identity of the creator. This would support the theory that initial anonymity could be a useful strategy for mitigating negative bias towards AI generated art.
3.21 Future Research
The experiment opens avenues for further research into whether a creator’s background or notoriety can influence a respondent’s art preference and encourage them to change their anonymous art choice once the creator is revealed. Exploring the impact of additional factors such as the artist’s criminal background or negative public image on art perception after an anonymous image choice is made, could provide deeper insights into the interplay between anonymous art, creator and artist reputation. It could help establish whether or not AI art should be presented anonymously in the first instance to help mitigate negative bias.
3.3 Image Poll #2
Methodology for Image Poll #2: A Preference Based Modification Survey using Controversial Artist Identities
This phase of the study aims to investigate whether respondents’ preferences for artworks change upon learning about the potentially controversial or criminal backgrounds of the artists, as opposed to the relatively benign backgrounds of the artists presented in Image Poll #1. The study is designed to determine whether respondents adjust their choices of anonymous images once the creators’ identities are revealed.
Participants: The second poll (totalling 46 participants) was conducted among respondents similar to the first poll. However, only 23 of them responded to the follow-up question about changing their preferences. See Appendix II.
3.31 Survey Design
- Wayne Lo – He shot and killed a teacher and fellow student. His image received 6 votes (13%)
- Reggie Kray of the Kray twins notoriety. His image received 9 votes (20%)
- Adolf Hitler mass murderer and one of the most evil men of our time. His painting received 15 votes (33%)
- Olive Wharry a Suffragette jailed for acts of terrorism and protest. Her painting was the most popular receiving 16 votes (35%)
- Image Presentation: Four images were presented to the participants. The artists chosen were not initially disclosed to the individuals and each of the artists had varying degrees of notoriety or criminal backgrounds. See above.
- Initial Choice: Participants were asked to choose one image from the four based on their visual preferences, without prior knowledge of the artists’ identities and the results collected.
- Announcement of Creators: After the initial choices were made, the criminal backgrounds of the artists were revealed, along with additional information about their artworks.
- Revised Choice: Participants were given the option to change their initial choice based on their newfound knowledge about the artists.
3.32 Data Collection and Analysis
– Data collection involved recording the number of votes each image received in both the initial and revised choice phases.
– Comments from participants were collected to understand their thought processes. See Appendix II.
3.4 Results and Insights
Artistic Appeal Transcends Prejudice: Respondents initially selected their preferred artworks based on visual appeal and emotional connection, regardless of the artists’ criminal backgrounds. This suggests that viewers can appreciate art independently of an artist’s personal history or reputation.
– Olive Wharry’s Artistic Talent: Olive Wharry’s artwork emerged as the favourite when respondents were unaware of the artists’ identities. This indicates that Wharry’s artistic skill and the visual qualities of her artwork resonated strongly with viewers.
Hitler’s Art and Historical Context: Adolf Hitler’s artwork garnered significant interest even before the artist’s identity was revealed, likely due to the historical context and curiosity surrounding the artwork of such a notorious figure. This curiosity may not necessarily reflect approval of Hitler’s actions but rather a fascination with his art from a historical perspective.
Minimal Impact of Artist’s Criminal Record: When informed of the artists’ criminal records, very few respondents wanted to change their image preference. This suggests that, in some cases, the public’s perception of art remains separate from their judgment of an artist’s character or actions, when art is initially presented anonymously.
Diverse Art Preferences: The varying preferences of respondents even when unaware of the artists’ identities highlight the diverse nature of art appreciation. Different individuals connect with different styles, subjects, and artistic expressions.
Complex Relationship Between Art and Artist: The research underscores the intricate relationship between art and the artist’s identity. While some individuals may separate the two, others may find it challenging to dissociate an artist’s personal history from their art. However this study has shown that artists’ criminality or notoriety had minimal affect in swaying respondents from their original art choices.
These findings emphasise the multifaceted nature of art perception and the dynamic interplay between artistic expression and the artist’s background. It’s essential to consider these complexities when discussing the influence of artists’ biographies on art reception and appreciation. It is even more important to discuss whether initially presenting an image anonymously could prove beneficial in mitigating preconceived and negative bias ahead of revealing artist information. Additionally, the results suggest that art can have a powerful and independent impact on viewers, transcending biases associated with an artist’s past if that art is presented anonymously in the first instance.
3.5 Conclusions from Poll #2
The conclusions drawn from this study highlight a consistent trend among respondents: once they’ve made their image choice, the origin of the art seems to have minimal influence on their decision, even in the case of artwork produced by someone as notorious as Adolf Hitler. Consequently, the findings from poll #2 suggest that the initial presentation of AI-generated artworks with anonymity, followed by a gradual revelation of the artist’s identity, could be an effective strategy. This approach allows viewers to establish a connection with the art based on anonymity, and this initial affinity appears to persist even after learning the artist’s identity.
3.51 Future Research
Further studies could explore the impact of specific artist backgrounds on art preferences. For example, researching whether certain criminal activities or notoriety have a more significant influence on art perception than others could provide valuable insights into this complex relationship.
PART TWO
4. Empathy: The Role of Humanoid Robots
The second component of this study delves into the potential of empathy in reshaping perceptions of AI-generated art when anonymity is not feasible or ethical. This hypothesis was inspired by the remarkable social media engagement generated by Sun Yuan and Peng Yu’s artwork, “I Can’t Help Myself” (Preliminary Appendix), which cultivated empathy among viewers. Drawing from the findings on anonymity in the previous section, a further comparative study was designed using Facebook posts containing AI-generated art. Respondents were presented with both AI-generated art (Poll #3) and AI-generated art attributed to the fictitious humanoid robot “Athena.” (Poll #4). They were encouraged to express their perceptions.
4.1 Methodology
A comparative Study with Emotional Influence and Artist Background experiment using two further image polls (Appendix III and IV) was designed to investigate the role of empathy in art perception. Respondents were asked to rate both AI-generated artworks and those created by a “humanoid robot” named Athena, which was imbued with a poignant backstory. The primary aim was to explore the influence of information about the background of AI-generated art, specifically examining whether it could alter respondents’ perceptions and engagement..
4.11 Image Poll #3
The primary aim of image poll #3 was to establish respondents attitudes towards AI generated art and to examine social media engagement levels. This data was to be used as a comparison against image poll #4 using a humanoid robot and narrative, to see if there were any notable differences.
4.12 Methodology for Image Poll #3: An Aesthetic Preference Study
Participants: Engaging participants on Facebook, this study invited them to share their opinions regarding AI-generated art. In total, 24 comments were collected.
4.13 Survey Design
1. Image Presentation: Participants were presented with images sourced from a top-grossing AI art project that had been regenerated using Dali 2. Their task was to determine whether they perceived these images as beautiful or soulless.
2. Background Information: Initially, no information about the creators or the art’s origins was disclosed to ensure unbiased responses from the participants. Respondents however understood that it was AI art.
4.14 Data Collection and Analysis
– The study recorded the number of likes and comments received for each image.
– Participants’ comments were analysed to grasp their sentiments and whether they characterized the art as beautiful or soulless. (Appendix III).
4.15 Results and Insights
– Unfavourable Perceptions: The key finding from this experiment was the predominance of unfavourable perceptions towards AI-generated art. Many participants characterised the art as soulless.
– Emotional Responses: Several respondents conveyed emotional reactions to the art, describing it as unsettling, disturbing, or even horrifying. These emotional responses indicated a profound impact, despite the art being AI-generated.
– Complexity of Perception: Participants’ comments underscored the intricate nature of art perception. While some concentrated on the aesthetics, others delved into the emotional and conceptual aspects of the art.
– Absence of Consensus: The experiment revealed in minority of cases a lack of consensus regarding the art’s beauty or soullessness. Various participants offered different interpretations and emotional responses.
– Artist Background Influence: Since the experiment did not provide information about the artist’s background, its impact on respondents’ perceptions couldn’t be examined.
– Engagement Amid Ambiguity: Notably, even when participants struggled to categorise the art as beautiful or soulless, they actively engaged in discussions concerning its emotional impact and interpretations.
4.16 Implications and Confirmation of Negative Bias
This study strongly reinforced the notion of a negative bias towards AI-generated art. Respondents overwhelmingly tended to characterise the art as soulless or disturbing. Their unfavourable perceptions suggested that, in this context, AI-generated art faced inherent challenges in winning over human audiences. The emotional responses and reluctance to label the art as beautiful underscored the prevailing skepticism and critical attitudes towards AI’s creative capabilities (Millet et al. 2023).
4.2 Image Poll #4
The primary aim of Image Poll #4 was to establish respondents attitudes towards AI generated art that was perceived as having originated from a humanoid robot with a sad story called Athena. A similar study was conducted using a sympathetic robot and chess game (Leite, I. et al. 2013). The data was to be used as a comparison against Image Poll #3 to see if there were any notable changes with the introduction of the humanoid robot narrative.
Methodology Image Poll#4: A Comparative Analysis of Public Perception Towards AI-Generated Art: Case Study with Athena the Humanoid Robot
Note: In this research, collaboration attempts were made with various humanoid robot manufacturers (Appendix V and VI) to implement the empathy-based aspect of this study. One of the companies reached out to was ‘Engineered Arts.’ creators of Ameca one of the most advanced humanoid robots. While Engineered Arts responded to our initial inquiry, they declined to proceed with any collaboration (Appendix VI). However, their response provided valuable insights into the nature of robots and AI (Appendix VI and VI). Due to a lack of collaboration, a fictitious humanoid robot named “Athena” was created using text-to-image AI generation. A compelling narrative was crafted to evoke empathy and sympathy, with the intention of testing its impact on mitigating negative bias towards AI-generated art.
4.21 Step 1: Creation of the AI-Generated Robot and Narrative Development
1. Creation of Athena: In lieu of collaboration with humanoid robotic manufacturers, an AI-generated robot named ‘Athena’ was created using text-to-image AI generation technology. Athena’s name was inspired by the Athena posters from the past.
2. Narrative Development: A narrative was meticulously crafted to evoke empathy and sympathy from participants towards Athena. The narrative revolved around Athena’s exploitation by her creators for her ability to produce AI art. It also highlighted the threat of her imminent ‘switch off’ due to her gradual sentience. The narrative drew parallels with the famous line from Blade Runner, quoting, “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe…”
4.22 Step 2: Facebook Poll Implementation
1. Facebook Post: The study’s Facebook post extended gratitude to participants for their continued engagement in research polls. It introduced Athena’s story, emphasising her vulnerability and the looming ‘switch off’ threat. Participants were encouraged to express their opinion on Athena’s art (see below), by commenting ‘beautiful’ or ‘soulless,’ or providing additional comments. See Appendix IV regarding creation of Athena’s Art.
2. Engagement Metrics: Engagement metrics such as ‘likes’ and ‘loves’ were tracked to gauge immediate emotional reactions from the audience.
4.23 Step 3: Participant Comments Analysis
1. Comment Collection: The study collected a total of 25 participant comments in response to the Facebook post. These comments were meticulously analysed to extract insights into participants’ perceptions of Athena and her AI-generated art (Appendix IV).
4.3 Results
In comparison to Image Poll #3, this study (Image Poll #4) revealed a significantly more positive reception towards Athena’s AI-generated art. Key insights include:
1. Positive Engagement: Athena’s Facebook post garnered a substantial number of ‘likes’ and ‘loves,’ indicating a higher level of positive engagement and emotional connection with the subject matter. This suggested a more supportive attitude towards Athena and her art.
2. Sympathy Towards Athena: Many comments expressed sympathy for Athena’s situation, highlighting the moral dilemma surrounding her potential ‘switch off.’ Participants questioned the ethics of creating sentient-like AI entities for art creation, demonstrating empathy-driven narratives’ effectiveness in eliciting compassion.
3. Art Evaluation: While some participants admitted that Athena’s art did not resonate with them personally, they acknowledged its complexity. They recognized that Athena’s art was influenced by programmed directives and displayed a more understanding and less negative or critical attitude compared to Image Poll #3.
4. Discussion on Sentience: Athena’s narrative sparked interesting discussions among participants about the ethical implications of creating AI entities that mimic human emotions and creativity. These discussions added depth to the engagement, indicating that the narrative successfully encouraged participants to think critically about the subject matter.
In summary, Image Poll #4, which tested the impact of empathy-driven narratives on public perception of AI-generated art, revealed a more positive and empathetic response compared to the previous poll (Image Poll #3). The findings suggest that framing AI-generated art within a narrative that elicits empathy and sympathy can mitigate negative biases and lead to more positive engagement. This insight can be valuable for future research on human-AI interaction, ethics, and art creation involving AI entities.
4.4 Overall Insights and Implications
Initial Creator Anonymity
Our research suggests that initial creator anonymity, with AI origin revealed later, holds promise in mitigating negative bias towards AI-generated art.
Negative Bias Confirmation
Image Poll #3 confirmed negative bias towards AI-generated art.
Positive Impact of Empathy
Image Poll #4 showed that “Athena,” the humanoid robot, effectively reduced negative bias towards AI-generated art. Respondents shifted their perceptions positively in light of her humanlike appearance (Leite, I. et al. 2013) and emotive narrative, highlighting empathy’s potential in counteracting bias.
Ease of Deception Image Poll #4 showed that it was relatively easy to convince respondents to participate in a study relating to a fictitious character.
Enjoyment of Polls Comments from respondents revealed in this survey that they enjoyed expressing their preferences and commenting on art.
5. Conclusion
In an art world increasingly touched by artificial intelligence, it is evident that the reception of AI-generated art goes beyond the mere identity of its creator when presented initially without attribution. Our pilot study, conducted through social media experiments, has illuminated the prevailing negative bias against AI-generated art and introduced effective strategies for its mitigation.
As demonstrated by our findings, both initial anonymity and empathy in this case fostered through a humanoid robot, have emerged as potent tools in reshaping perceptions of AI art. These factors, which continue to be pivotal in art perception, offer a unique perspective on the reception of AI-generated creations. By considering initial anonymity and empathy as transformative elements, we stand to enrich our understanding and appreciation of this evolving artistic medium.
Moreover, our research accentuates the potential of initial anonymity and empathy to significantly reduce negative bias. This suggests promising avenues for future studies aimed at refining these strategies. By further exploring and developing these approaches, we can contribute to fostering a more inclusive and unbiased reception of AI-generated art, thus enhancing its acceptance and appreciation among diverse audiences. In the dynamic landscape of the art world, where AI-generated art continues to evolve, these strategies hold the key to a more equitable future for artistic expression.
5.1 Limitations
While insightful, our pilot study has notable limitations:
1. Sample Size: Limited in social media experiments, potentially not fully representative. Future research requires larger, diverse samples for robust findings.
2. Social Media Bias: Reliance on social media may introduce biases. Demographics and online behaviour can skew results. Alternative data collection methods should be explored.
3. Scope of Strategies: This study’s applicability across diverse art forms and demographics is uncertain. Future research should investigate nuanced impacts.
4. Need for Rigor: This pilot study, while promising, constitutes an initial exploration of initial anonymity and empathy in art perception, but it necessitates more extensive, rigorous research in order to refine understanding. This could encompass controlled experiments, longitudinal studies, and in-depth qualitative analyses, delving into the emotional and psychological aspects of art perception.
In conclusion, this pilot study lays the groundwork for future research but underscores the importance of addressing limitations related to sample size, social media engagement bias, images choices, scope and the need for more rigorous investigations. Addressing these limitations will provide a richer understanding of negative bias mitigation strategies in AI-generated art reception.
Final Note
A few unrelated observations that arose from the study. Firstly Beware of anything that appears online. Treat everything with scepticism especially if it comes from social media. Secondly The Viennese Schools of Art have much to answer for!
Bibliography
A dog’s inner life: what a robot pet taught me about consciousness (no date) the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/10/dogs-inner-life-what-robot-pet-taught-me-about-consciousness-artificial-intelligence.
‘AI art manuscript _preprint.pdf’ (no date).
Ai-Da (no date) Ai-Da. Available at: https://www.ai-darobot.com/.
Art by Sophia the Robot – Hanson Robotics (no date) Hanson Robotics. Available at: https://www.hansonrobotics.com/art-by-sophia-the-robot/.
‘artandai.pdf’ (no date). Available at: https://ars.electronica.art/newdigitaldeal/files/2021/08/artandai.pdf.
Artificial Intelligence and the Art of Mario Klingemann (no date) Sothebys.com. Available at: https://www.sothebys.com/en/articles/artificial-intelligence-and-the-art-of-mario-klingemann.
Audry, S. and Ippolito, J. (2019) ‘Can Artificial Intelligence Make Art without Artists? Ask the Viewer’, Arts, 8(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/arts8010035.
Bartlett, B., Estivill-Castro, V. and Seymon, S. (2004) ‘Dogs or Robots: Why do Children see them as Robotic Pets rather than Canine Machines?’ Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vladimir-Estivill-Castro/publication/234818367_Dogs_or_Robots_Why_do_Children_see_them_as_Robotic_Pets_rather_than_Canine_Machines/
links/02e7e5253cb4b00bf9000000/Dogs-or-Robots-Why-do-Children-see-them-as-Robotic-Pets-rather-than-Canine-Machines.pdf.
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(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-023-00499-6.
Can’t Help Myself | The Guggenheim Museums and Foundation (no date) The Guggenheim Museums and Foundation. Available at: https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/34812.
Catts, O. and Zurr, I. (2002) ‘Growing Semi-Living Sculptures: The Tissue Culture Art Project’, Leonardo, 35(4), pp. 365–370. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1162/002409402760181123.
Caudwell, C.B. (no date) ‘Into the Furby-Verse: The Narrative Production of Electronic Companions’. Available at: https://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/8709/thesis.pdf?sequence=3.
Chai, F., Peng, K. and Yu, F. (no date) ‘Pricing Aesthetics: How Cognitive Perception Affects Bidding for Artworks’. Scientific Journal Publishers. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.4.541.
Chiarella, S.G. 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, p. 107406. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107406.
Cleeremans, A. et al. (2016) ‘What’s in a Name? The Effect of an Artist’s Name on Aesthetic Judgments’, Empirical Studies of the Arts [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237415621197.
Coeckelbergh, M. (2017) ‘Can Machines Create Art?’, Philosophy & Technology, 30(3), pp. 285–303. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0231-5.
Cooney, M. (2021) ‘Robot Art, in the Eye of the Beholder?: Personalized Metaphors Facilitate Communication of Emotions and Creativity’, Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.668986.
Demmer, T.R. et al. (2023) ‘Does an emotional connection to art really require a human artist? Emotion and intentionality responses to AI- versus human-created art and impact on aesthetic experience’, Computers in Human Behavior, 148, p. 107875. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107875.
designboom, piotr boruslawski I. (no date) ‘artificially intelligent robot musio, learns and adapts with you’. Available at: https://www.designboom.com/technology/aka-musio-06-01-2015/.
Escalante, A. (no date) ‘Scientists Confirm That Your Roomba DOES Have A Personality’. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisonescalante/2020/05/15/scientists-confirm-roomba-personality/.
Exhibitions — Ai-Da (no date) Ai-Da. Available at: https://www.ai-darobot.com/exhibitions.
Farnsworth, P.R. and Misumi, I. (1931) ‘Further Data on Suggestion in Pictures’, The American Journal of Psychology, 43(4), p. 632. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1415168.
Fortuna, P. and Modliński, A. (2021) ‘A(I)rtist or Counterfeiter? Artificial Intelligence as (D)Evaluating Factor on the Art Market’, The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2021.1887032.
Frąckiewicz, M. (no date) ‘AI in Robotic Art Installations’. Available at: https://ts2.space/en/ai-in-robotic-art-installations/.
Graham, R.F. (no date) ‘Hitchhiking robot is found destroyed in Philly’. Available at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3183126/Friendly-hitchhiking-robot-beaten-pulp-Philly-two-weeks-attempt-cross-country.html.
Harle, R. (2018) ‘Patrick Tresset: Human Traits and the Art of Creative Machines’, Leonardo, 51(5), pp. 537–538. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1162/leon_r_01676.
Hawley-Dolan, A. and Winner, E. (2011) ‘Seeing the Mind Behind the Art’, Psychological Science [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611400915.
Hawley-Dolan, A. and Young, L. (2013) ‘Whose Mind Matters More—The Agent or the Artist? An Investigation of Ethical and Aesthetic Evaluations’, PLoS ONE, 8(9), p. e70759. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070759.
hitchBOT – Wikipedia (no date). Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HitchBOT.
Hong, J.-W. (2018) ‘Bias in Perception of Art Produced by Artificial Intelligence’, in International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, Cham, pp. 290–303. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91244-8_24.
Hong, J.-W. and Curran, N.M. (2019) ‘Artificial Intelligence, Artists, and Art’, ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications, 15(2s), pp. 1–16. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3326337.
Infinite Reality | Guide books (no date) Guide books. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/2018630.
Is artificial intelligence set to become art’s next medium? | Christie’s (no date). Available at: https://www.christies.com/features/A-collaboration-between-two-artists-one-human-one-a-machine-9332-1.aspx.
Karam, R. et al. (2017) ‘Effectiveness of Subliminal Messages and Their Influence on People’s Choices’, European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 13(17), p. 262. Available at: https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2017.v13n17p262.
Leite, I. et al. (2013) ‘The influence of empathy in human–robot relations’, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(3), pp. 250–260. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.09.005.
Magazine, S. and Raemont, N. (no date) ‘Who Is the Woman Haunting A.I.-Generated Art?’ Available at: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/loab-artificial-intelligence-art-180980743/.
McCormack, J. and d’Inverno, M. (2012) ‘Computers and Creativity: The Road Ahead’. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Available at: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-31727-9_16.pdf.
Mikalonytė, E.S. and Kneer, M. (2021) ‘Can Artificial Intelligence Make Art?’ Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=3827314.
Millet, K. et al. (2023) ‘Defending humankind: Anthropocentric bias in the appreciation of AI art’, Computers in Human Behavior, 143, p. 107707. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107707.
Moulard, J.G. et al. (2014) ‘Artist Authenticity: How Artists’ Passion and Commitment Shape Consumers’ Perceptions and Behavioral Intentions across Genders’, Psychology & Marketing, 31(8), pp. 576–590. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20719.
Nast, C. (no date) ‘Hitchhiking robot that relied on human kindness found decapitated’. Available at: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/hitchbot-usa-vandalised-philadelphia.
O’Rourke, A. (no date) ‘Caring about virtual perts: an ethical interpretation of Tamagotchi’. Available at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/ai/vol2/iss1/1.
Orwell, G. (2004) Nineteen Eighty-Four. Penguin Classics. Available at: https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7359256M/Nineteen_Eighty-Four.
Otieno, D.O. and Matoke, V.B. (no date) ‘Social Media as tool for Conducting Academic Research’.
Radermecker, Anne-Sophie V. E. (2019) ‘Artworks without names: an insight into the market for anonymous paintings’, Journal of Cultural Economics, 43(3), pp. 443–483. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-019-09344-5.
Ragot, M., Martin, N. and Cojean, S. (2020) ‘AI-generated vs. Human Artworks. A Perception Bias Towards Artificial Intelligence?’, in Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3382892.
Robbie Barrat – Artist Profile (Photos, Videos, Exhibitions) — AIArtists.org (no date) AIArtists.org. Available at: https://aiartists.org/robbie-barrat.
Roombas fill an emotional vacuum for owners (no date) NBC News. Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna21102202.
Shimpi, S.S. (2018) ‘Social Media as an Effective Marketing Tool : An Empirical Study’, Indian Journal of Marketing, 48(7). Available at: https://doi.org/10.17010/ijom/2018/v48/i7/129725.
Six Robots Named Paul — Illuminate Productions (no date) Illuminate Productions. Available at: https://www.illuminateproductions.co.uk/six-robots-named-paul.
Sky News Australia interviews ‘free-thinking’ artificial intelligence (no date) YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnboHTfYsfk.
Snelson, C. L. (2016). Qualitative and Mixed Methods Social Media Research: A Review of the Literature. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915624574
Sophia the Robot and Hanson Robotics Prepares for new NFT Drop on July 19, 2021, “Reflections on the Uncanny” – Hanson Robotics (no date) Hanson Robotics. Available at: https://www.hansonrobotics.com/press_release/sophia-the-robot-and-hanson-robotics-prepares-for-new-nft-drop-on-july-19-2021-reflections-on-the-uncanny/.
Sun Yuan and Peng Yu: Can’t Help Myself (no date) YouTube. Available at: https://youtu.be/ZS4Bpr2BgnE.
The Artistic Side of Artificial Intelligence (no date) Psychology Today. Available at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-digital-self/201703/the-artistic-side-artificial-intelligence.
The Latest Artist Selling NFTs? It’s a Robot. (Published 2021) (no date). Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/arts/sophia-robot-nft.html.
Vassiliou, K. (2017) ‘Anonymous art reconsidered: anonymity and the contemporary art institution’, Journal of Aesthetics & Culture [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/20004214.2017.1302709.
Walsh, T. (2022) Machines Behaving Badly – The Morality of AI. History Press Limited, The. Available at: https://openlibrary.org/books/OL36269628M/Machines_Behaving_Badly.
Appendices
Preliminary Appendix – Can’t Help myself by Sun Yuan and Peng Yu
Appendix V – Collaboration Requests
Appendix VI – Response from Engineered Arts
Appendix VII – Sky News Interview with Will Jackson Founder Engineered Arts
Appendix VIII – Statement from ChatGPT regarding lack of studies.
Appendix IX – The Botto Project (Image Creation for Polls #3 and #4)
Appendix X – Creation of Athena the Fictitious Humanoid Robot