人工智能作曲家偏见:当听众认为音乐是由人工智能创作时,他们就不那么喜欢音乐了。

IF 2.7 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1037/xap0000447
Daniel B Shank, Courtney Stefanik, Cassidy Stuhlsatz, Kaelyn Kacirek, Amy M Belfi
{"title":"人工智能作曲家偏见:当听众认为音乐是由人工智能创作时,他们就不那么喜欢音乐了。","authors":"Daniel B Shank,&nbsp;Courtney Stefanik,&nbsp;Cassidy Stuhlsatz,&nbsp;Kaelyn Kacirek,&nbsp;Amy M Belfi","doi":"10.1037/xap0000447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of artificial intelligence (AI) to compose music is becoming mainstream. Yet, there is a concern that listeners may have biases against AIs. Here, we test the hypothesis that listeners will like music less if they think it was composed by an AI. In Study 1, participants listened to excerpts of electronic and classical music and rated how much they liked the excerpts and whether they thought they were composed by an AI or human. Participants were more likely to attribute an AI composer to electronic music and liked music less that they thought was composed by an AI. In Study 2, we directly manipulated composer identity by telling participants that the music they heard (electronic music) was composed by an AI or by a human, yet we found no effect of composer identity on liking. We hypothesized that this was due to the \"AI-sounding\" nature of electronic music. Therefore, in Study 3, we used a set of \"human-sounding\" classical music excerpts. Here, participants liked the music less when it was purportedly composed by an AI. We conclude with implications of the AI composer bias for understanding perception of AIs in arts and aesthetic processing theories more broadly. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48003,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied","volume":"29 3","pages":"676-692"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"AI composer bias: Listeners like music less when they think it was composed by an AI.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel B Shank,&nbsp;Courtney Stefanik,&nbsp;Cassidy Stuhlsatz,&nbsp;Kaelyn Kacirek,&nbsp;Amy M Belfi\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xap0000447\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The use of artificial intelligence (AI) to compose music is becoming mainstream. Yet, there is a concern that listeners may have biases against AIs. Here, we test the hypothesis that listeners will like music less if they think it was composed by an AI. In Study 1, participants listened to excerpts of electronic and classical music and rated how much they liked the excerpts and whether they thought they were composed by an AI or human. Participants were more likely to attribute an AI composer to electronic music and liked music less that they thought was composed by an AI. In Study 2, we directly manipulated composer identity by telling participants that the music they heard (electronic music) was composed by an AI or by a human, yet we found no effect of composer identity on liking. We hypothesized that this was due to the \\\"AI-sounding\\\" nature of electronic music. Therefore, in Study 3, we used a set of \\\"human-sounding\\\" classical music excerpts. Here, participants liked the music less when it was purportedly composed by an AI. We conclude with implications of the AI composer bias for understanding perception of AIs in arts and aesthetic processing theories more broadly. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48003,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied\",\"volume\":\"29 3\",\"pages\":\"676-692\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000447\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000447","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

利用人工智能(AI)作曲正在成为主流。然而,有人担心听众可能对人工智能有偏见。在这里,我们测试了一个假设,即如果听众认为音乐是由人工智能创作的,他们会不那么喜欢音乐。在研究1中,参与者听了电子音乐和古典音乐的选段,并对他们对这些选段的喜欢程度进行了评分,以及他们认为这些选段是由人工智能还是人类创作的。参与者更有可能将人工智能作曲家归因于电子音乐,并且不太喜欢他们认为由人工智能作曲的音乐。在研究2中,我们通过告诉参与者他们听到的音乐(电子音乐)是由人工智能或人类创作的,直接操纵作曲家身份,但我们发现作曲家身份对喜好没有影响。我们假设这是由于电子音乐“听起来像人工智能”的性质。因此,在研究3中,我们使用了一组“人性化”的古典音乐节选。在这里,参与者不太喜欢据称由人工智能作曲的音乐。我们总结了人工智能作曲家偏见对更广泛地理解艺术和美学处理理论中人工智能感知的影响。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
AI composer bias: Listeners like music less when they think it was composed by an AI.

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) to compose music is becoming mainstream. Yet, there is a concern that listeners may have biases against AIs. Here, we test the hypothesis that listeners will like music less if they think it was composed by an AI. In Study 1, participants listened to excerpts of electronic and classical music and rated how much they liked the excerpts and whether they thought they were composed by an AI or human. Participants were more likely to attribute an AI composer to electronic music and liked music less that they thought was composed by an AI. In Study 2, we directly manipulated composer identity by telling participants that the music they heard (electronic music) was composed by an AI or by a human, yet we found no effect of composer identity on liking. We hypothesized that this was due to the "AI-sounding" nature of electronic music. Therefore, in Study 3, we used a set of "human-sounding" classical music excerpts. Here, participants liked the music less when it was purportedly composed by an AI. We conclude with implications of the AI composer bias for understanding perception of AIs in arts and aesthetic processing theories more broadly. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.80%
发文量
110
期刊介绍: The mission of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied® is to publish original empirical investigations in experimental psychology that bridge practically oriented problems and psychological theory. The journal also publishes research aimed at developing and testing of models of cognitive processing or behavior in applied situations, including laboratory and field settings. Occasionally, review articles are considered for publication if they contribute significantly to important topics within applied experimental psychology. Areas of interest include applications of perception, attention, memory, decision making, reasoning, information processing, problem solving, learning, and skill acquisition.
期刊最新文献
A rate-them-all lineup procedure increases information but reduces discriminability. Comparing generating predictions with retrieval practice as learning strategies for primary school children. A comparison between numeric confidence ratings and verbal confidence statements. Prior knowledge and new learning: An experimental study of domain-specific knowledge. Time on task effects during interactive visual search.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1