Results
Claim 01
Young adults are not be able to correctly recognize illustrations created using AI model and illustrations done by humans using digital software.
H
0
Young adults are able to correctly recognize illustrations created using AI model and illustrations done by humans using digital software 65% of times.
Binomial Z benchmarking test
Test
Success Rate
65% Benchmark
No Description
62%
AI + Human
49%
AI
74%
Human
p = 0.9445 H0 is rejected
False Description
p = 1.00
42%
AI + Human
37%
AI
47%
Human
True Description
p =0.8958
62%
AI + Human
68%
AI
57%
Human
Young adults are not able to correctly recognize illustrations created using AI model and illustrations done by humans using digital software 38% of times.
Claim 02
Presence of a description for an illustration influences its perceived origin.
H
0
The success rates for all 3 treatments (No description, False Description & True description) are the same.
One Way ANOVA
Test
There is a significant difference between the success rates for all 3 treatments.
(No description, False Description & True description)
False descriptions significantly affect perception of the origin of illustration, but true descriptions or no description don't have much impact.
Mean Success Rate on different description conditions
Post Hoc Analysis - Tukey test
0
5
10
No
description
Success rate
True
description
False
description
5
10
15
No
description
True
description
False
description
Success rate
p < 0.001
p < α
F = 17.4
H is rejected
0
H
0
There is no significant difference in success counts due to lack of description and the existence of a true description of the illustration
p = 0.994
p > α
Hence, failed to reject H0.
p = 0.001
p < α
Hence, H0 is rejected.
H
0
There is no significant difference in success counts due to lack of description and the existence of a false description of the illustration.
p = 0.001
p < α
Hence, H0 is rejected.
H
0
There is no significant difference in success counts due to the existence of a true description and false description of the illustration
Claim 03
Illustrations perceived as created by humans using digital software are more aesthetically appealing than those generated using AI model.
H
0
Aesthetic appeal for illustrations perceived as created using AI model and perceived as created by humans using a digital software is the same.
Paired Interval t Test
Test
Aesthetic Scores on different perceptions
0
5
10
15
Perceived
as AI
Perceived
as Human
Perceived as AI generated
Perceived as Human created
7.0
7.5
8.0
7.06
7.65
Median
Mean (95% CI)
p = 0.0015
p < α
H is rejected
0
There is a significant difference between Aesthetic appeal for illustrations perceived as created using AI model and by humans using a digital software.
Observed mean of aesthetic score Perceived as AI is 7.1 and that of
Perceived as human is 7.7 .
Hence, Claim 3 i.e. Illustrations perceived as created by humans using digital software are more aesthetically appealing than those generated using AI model stands true.
AI vs Human generated content
Quantitative Research Method
Field
Design Research Method
Duration
3 weeks
Collaborators
Hayat Tamboli |
Nachiket Nanoty

powerbrainai.com
AI vs Human generated content
Broad topic
Narrow topic
Factors affecting perceived origin of static images
Focused topic
To study whether people are able to differentiate between AI and human generated digital illustrations and the effect of description on the perception of it’s origin.
Motivation
To study whether people are able to differentiate between AI and human generated digital illustrations and the effect of description on Digital artists around the world are concerned that the evolution of AI will wipe out future generations of artists, it will make them obsolete and the majority of art will become intention less and algorithmically created.
As of now AI is prominent in the digital domain, we shall address issues with digital artwork and see whether humans are able to differentiate between AI-created and human-created artwork and which do they prefer aesthetically.





Research Questions
R01
Can an individual differentiate between a human generated digital illustration and AI generated digital illustration?
R02
Does the existence of Image description influence the perceived origin of the illustration?
R03
Does perception of origin of the illustration influence its aesthetic appeal?
Claims
Claim 01
Young adults are not be able to correctly recognize illustrations created using AI model and illustrations done by humans using digital software.
Claim 02
Presence of a description for an illustration influences its perceived origin.
Claim 03
Illustrations perceived as created by humans using digital software are more aesthetically appealing than those generated using AI model.
Methodology
Independent Variables
Source of illustration
(Binomial)
AI generated
Created by human
Description
(Nominal)
No description
False description
True description
Dependent Variables
Perceived Origin
(Binomial) (Within Subject)
AI generated
Created by human
Aesthetic Appeal
Confidence rating
for perceived origin
Previous knowledge of AI images
Confounding
Variables
Illustration by AI model
Illustration by humans
Controlled
Variables
Gender
Device
Random
Variables
Perceived Origin
Aesthetic Appeal
Confidence on
perception
Conceptual
Variables
Between Subject Design
Convenience Sampling
Young Adults
No description
Form 01
Form 02
Analysis
Form 03
False description
True description
Random selection
24
T1
T2
T3
23
20
Example Question

Future Scope
While 62% accuracy may seem reasonable, it also implies that humans are incorrect about 38% of the time.
Future research should investigate various factors that could contribute to misclassifications, including the complexity of images, the diversity of AI-generated styles, and individual differences in perceptual abilities.
Thanks!