Yes, people will engage less with an ai generated image than an image which was made differently.

A common sentiment I see in pro-AI spaces is that people who change their opinion on a piece of art after learning its creation process are being silly. This is strange to me, as people have always done that, even before AI, and I personally think it is a good thing.

For example, let's compare photography and hyper-realistic painting and two images: one of an eye and one of a starving family.

Let's say that the image of an eye is a photograph. People might appreciate the composition, but generally, they won't care. However, if the exact same image is really a painting, people will engage with it much more. They will take notice of all the specific care taken and admire the detail and effort. People like seeing work done by other people, and they appreciate the care taken.

Let's say the image of a starving family is a hyperrealistic drawing. People might appreciate the work but might not be that engaged. However, if you reveal that the image is really a photograph, people will get a punch in the gut, hating to realize that this is the world as it is, not as someone imagined it. They would have to confront it.

These reactions make sense. People use art as a way to engage with the world and with others, and knowing how a piece of art was made changes its nature.

Let's say that both images were then revealed to be AI. How would you expect people's reactions to change? How SHOULD their reactions change?

Or let's use a different example: Untitled (Portrait of Ross in L.A.).

Take a look at what it is literally: a giant pile of candy in the corner of a room that museum visitors are encouraged to take a piece of. After the pile is empty, the stack is filled back to the top.

The story behind it is that the artist's partner (Ross) died of aids. The pile of candy weighs 175 pounds when full, the same weight Ross was when he was healthy, and the pile slowly shrinks; it represents how Ross shrank and withered as he died.

You can feel however you want about that story, but what if I told you it wasn't true? What if the truth was that a Museum curator thought it would be nice to give visitors candy, so he asked chat GPT for an artsy story to give an excuse for free candy? Would that not change your opinion on the piece?

Most here are not interested in arguments about the soul, but I would still like to share some thoughts based on my faith.

The early Quaker church was anti-fiction: Quakers value truth and connection, and the idea was that fiction was anti-both; it was a lie that separated someone from the truth of the world and their connection to it, a distraction from the world. However, over time, this softened. First, some Quakers started writing morality tales with the idea that fiction could be used to make a real point about the truth if done intentionally. Now, the general opinion is that fiction is, by nature, a force of truth and connection, and there are many Quaker fiction writers.

Quaker thought emphasizes the idea that everyone has a divine spark, an inner light. When someone creates something, they share that light; they let us see their light. Through that, we can also see their appreciation of the glory of creation, the world.

People use the term escapism, but people do not use fiction as a means to escape the world. When one turns to bright art in dark times, they see the world as it is and should be, and are reminded of the joy of life and what it should and can be.

Even the most commercial, most compromised art was made by someone. Even subconsciously, they made choices that other people would not have made, and we can see their light through that. It may not be good art, a good truth, or a good reflection of the world, but it still IS those things, and it is impossible for it not to be.

Art does not lie; it tells the truth; it does not separate but instead connects.

You are likely not Quaker, and possibly do not care at all about Quaker principles, which is entirely reasonable. However, even with that, you have to admit, humans are social creatures. We are hard-wired to care about other people and about our environment. Much of our brain's wiring on WHY we like art and fiction is because we use it as a way to connect with other people and the world. It is why a painting's reflection of an artist's inner life means so much to us. It is why a photograph's reflection of the world as it is can hit us so hard.

But for the first time, we have fiction and art which doesn't have to be a reflection of either the world or a person's inner life, something which was impossible before.

Lets take ai to the extreme, a single letter typed into stable diffusion. The image created will be something near impossible 6 years before, a piece of art which is not a reflection of it's creator's view on the world nor a reflection of the world. A thing of pure entertainment, a distraction.

That is, obviously, an extreme case. Very little AI art is like that. But all AI art cared touches of that distraction. A viewer doesn't know what there is to appreciate, unless told, they can't distinguish between the inner light, the world, and computerized nothing. No matter how small the touch of ai upon a piece, it still offers that confusion.

An example, this post was inspired by me browsing civitai: I saw a cool image of a viking riding a polar bear. However when I went to the prompt, it had specified that the bear wore rune covered armor. The image of the bear had no armor, but instead a harness. This mistake was no reflection of the artist other then their sloth, this was no reflection of the world other than a repetition of derivative interpretations of interpretations...

Or perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the artist changed their mind on the armor throughout the process. I shall never know.

Someone's interpretation of art changes on knowing what it is.

When someone knows an image is a painting, they know to appreciate the decisions made in the rendering, they know that every choice came from a fellow person, and they appreciate that they have an opportunity to converse with a person's most inner self.

When someone knows an image is a photograph, they know to appreciate the decision of choice, the curation of life, so that they can see the world as it is, the world as it has been arranged. They have two conversations: one with the photographer, speaking with their heart on the choices made, and the second with the world, with what it is, what it looks like.

When someone knows an image is an AI, they know only to appreciate entertainment and distraction. They are welcomed into a world of confusion, where they will never know is their fellow in humanity, what is the world, and what is nothing.

Perhaps this isn't always true. There are instances where something could get power by being AI, generate the same prompt of "strength," and shape it into that which is strong, but the images never portray this. Boom comments on how the amalgam of human creation misses truth, thereby making a truth.

But no matter what, people will engage differently. People appreciate art because they care for their world and their fellows; they want to engage with those things. How the art was made is part of that conversation, and to pretend it is not is a distraction in itself. AI is not the same as other forms of creation, and people will never react as if that is not true.

Nor should they.