CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 21Art, Technology, and CultureEthics and Social Impacts of AITechnology's Impact on Media

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Art and the science of generative AI: A deeper dive

Open access
Epstein, Ziv, Hertzmann, Aaron, Herman, Laura, Mahari, Robert, Frank, Morgan R., Groh, Matthew, Schroeder, Hope, Smith, Amy, Akten, Memo, Fjeld, Jessica, Farid, Hany, Leach, Neil, Pentland, Alex, Russakovsky, Olga·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2306.04141arXiv 2306.04141
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A new class of tools, colloquially called generative AI, can produce high-quality artistic media for visual arts, concept art, music, fiction, literature, video, and animation. The generative capabilities of these tools are likely to fundamentally alter the creative processes by which creators formulate ideas and put them into production. As creativity is reimagined, so too may be many sectors of society. Understanding the impact of generative AI - and making policy decisions around it - requires new interdisciplinary scientific inquiry into culture, economics, law, algorithms, and the interaction of technology and creativity. We argue that generative AI is not the harbinger of art's demise, but rather is a new medium with its own distinct affordances. In this vein, we consider the impacts of this new medium on creators across four themes: aesthetics and culture, legal questions of ownership and credit, the future of creative work, and impacts on the contemporary media ecosystem. Across these themes, we highlight key research questions and directions to inform policy and beneficial uses of the technology.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2306.04141

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is a growing trend where creative and technical responsibilities increasingly overlap.

    “This reflects a growing trend where creatives and technical responsibilities increasingly overlap (Epstein et al., 2023).”

    From My Teammate is an AI: Evaluating Generative AI in Game Asset Creation through a Post-GameJam Study (2025) · cites this paper as Epstein et al., 2023

    The Introduction and §3 say that new technologies recast creators’ roles and practices. §4 discusses possible changes to creative work and workplace requirements. None of these passages says that creative and technical responsibilities increasingly overlap; searches for technical skills, artists as programmers, and blurred responsibilities found no such passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 77

  1. Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Om- mer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10684-10695, 2022.
  2. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017.
  3. Aaron Scharf. Art and photography. Penguin Harmondsworth, 1968.
  4. Tom Sito. Moving Innovation: A History of Computer animation. MIT Press, 2013.
  5. Melanie Mitchell. Why AI is harder than we think. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.12871, 2021. · arXiv
  6. Zachary C Lipton and Jacob Steinhardt. Troubling trends in machine learning scholarship. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03341, 2018. · arXiv
  7. Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass. The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people. Cambridge, UK, 10:236605, 1996.
  8. David Watson. The rhetoric and reality of anthropomorphism in artificial intelligence. Minds and Machines, 29(3):417-440, 2019.
  9. Ziv Epstein, Sydney Levine, David G Rand, and Iyad Rahwan. Who gets credit for ai- generated art? iScience, 23(9):101515, 2020.
  10. Michael F Cohen. Imagination amplification. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 20(1):54-55, 2000.
  11. Memo Akten. Deep visual instruments: realtime continuous, meaningful human control over deep neural networks for creative expression. PhD thesis, Goldsmiths, University of London, 2021.
  12. Nick Seaver. Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big data & society, 4(2):2053951717738104, 2017.
  13. Manav Raj, Justin Berg, and Rob Seamans. Artificial intelligence: The effect of AI dis- closure on evaluations of creative content. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.06217, 2023. · arXiv
  14. Ziv Epstein, Océane Boulais, Skylar Gordon, and Matt Groh. Interpolating gans to scaf- fold autotelic creativity. In International Conference on Computational Creativity Casual Creators Workshop, 2020.
  15. Skylar Gordon, Robert Mahari, Manaswi Mishra, and Ziv Epstein. Co-creation and own- ership for ai radio. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.00485, 2022. · arXiv
  16. Mario Klingemann, Simon Hudson, and Ziv Epstein. Botto: A decentralized autonomous artist. In NeurIPS Machine Learning for Creativity and Design Workshop, 2021.
  17. Scott Draves. The electric sheep screen-saver: a case study in aesthetic evolution. In Proceedings of the 3rd European conference on Applications of Evolutionary Computing, 2005.
  18. Jimmy Secretan, Nicholas Beato, David B D'Ambrosio, Adelein Rodriguez, Adam Camp- bell, Jeremiah T Folsom-Kovarik, and Kenneth O Stanley. Picbreeder: A case study in collaborative evolutionary exploration of design space. Evolutionary computation, 19(3):373-403, 2011.
  19. Gene Kogan. Artist in the cloud: Towards an autonomous artist. In Neurips Machine Learning for Creativity and Design Workshop, 2019.
  20. Jérémie Rappaz, Michele Catasta, Robert West, and Karl Aberer. Latent structure in collaboration: the case of Reddit R/place. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Con- ference on Web and Social Media, volume 12, 2018.
  21. Divya Shanmugam, Katie Lewis, Jose Javier Gonzalez-Ortiz, Agnieszka Kurant, and John Guttag. At the intersection of deep learning and conceptual art: The end of signature. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.04312, 2022. · arXiv
  22. Eva Cetinic and James She. Understanding and creating art with AI: Review and out- look. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM), 18(2):1-22, 2022.
  23. Thomas Poell, David B Nieborg, and Brooke Erin Duffy. Platforms and cultural produc- tion. John Wiley & Sons, 2021.
  24. Lev Manovich. AI Aesthetics. Strelka Press Moscow, 2018.
  25. Ben Shneiderman. Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming languages. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Easier and More Productive Use of Computer Systems.(Part-II): Human Interface and the User Interface-Volume 1981, page 143, 1981.
  26. Paul Bloom. Intention, history, and artifact concepts. Cognition, 60(1):1-29, 1996.
  27. Vivian Liu and Lydia B Chilton. Design guidelines for prompt engineering text-to-image generative models. In Proceedings the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1-23, 2022.
  28. Jon McCormack, Camilo Cruz Gambardella, Nina Rajcic, Stephen James Krol, Maria Teresa Llano, and Meng Yang. Is writing prompts really making art? In Artifi- cial Intelligence in Music, Sound, Art and Design: 12th International Conference, Evo- MUSART 2023, Held as Part of EvoStar 2023, Brno, Czech Republic, April 12-14, 2023, Proceedings, pages 196-211. Springer, 2023.
  29. Amy Smith, Hope Schroeder, Ziv Epstein, Mike Cook, Simon Colton, and Andrew Lipp- man. Trash to treasure: Using text-to-image models to inform the design of physical artefacts. In The AAAI-23 Workshop on Creative AI Across Modalities, 2023.
  30. Jieyu Zhao, Tianlu Wang, Mark Yatskar, Vicente Ordonez, and Kai-Wei Chang. Men also like shopping: Reducing gender bias amplification using corpus-level constraints. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 2017.
  31. Safiya Umoja Noble. Algorithms of oppression. In Algorithms of oppression. New York University Press, 2018.
  32. Matthew Kay, Cynthia Matuszek, and Sean A Munson. Unequal representation and gender stereotypes in image search results for occupations. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 3819-3828, 2015.
  33. Shreya Shankar, Yoni Halpern, Eric Breck, James Atwood, Jimbo Wilson, and D Sculley. No classification without representation: Assessing geodiversity issues in open data sets for the developing world. NeurIPS Workshop on Machine Learning for the Developing World , 2017.
  34. Timnit Gebru, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vecchione, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna Wallach, Hal Daumé III, and Kate Crawford. Datasheets for datasets. Communications of the ACM, 64(12):86-92, December 2021.
  35. Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the ACM conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 610-623, 2021.
  36. Aditya Grover, Jiaming Song, Ashish Kapoor, Kenneth Tran, Alekh Agarwal, Eric Horvitz, and Stefano Ermon. Bias correction of learned generative models via likelihood- free importance weighting. In Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2019.
  37. Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, Christopher Akiki, Margaret Mitchell, and Yacine Jernite. Stable bias: Analyzing societal representations in diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11408, 2023. · arXiv
  38. Vongani H. Maluleke, Neerja Thakkar, Tim Brooks, Ethan Weber, Trevor Darrell, Alexei A. Efros, Angjoo Kanazawa, and Devin Guillory. Studying bias in GANs through the lens of race. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2022.
  39. Tong Che, Yanran Li, Athul Jacob, Yoshua Bengio, and Wenjie Li. Mode regularized generative adversarial networks. In International Conference on Learning Representa- tions (ICLR), 2017.
  40. Caterina Moruzzi. Should human artists fear AI?: A report on the perception of creative ai. In xCoAx 2020: the Eighth Conference on Computation, Communication, Aesthetics & X, pages 170-185, 2020.
  41. Ellen Yi-Luen Do, Mark D Gross, Bennett Neiman, and Craig Zimring. Intentions in and relations among design drawings. Design studies, 21(5):483-503, 2000.
  42. Rebecca Chamberlain, Caitlin Mullin, Bram Scheerlinck, and Johan Wagemans. Putting the art in artificial: Aesthetic responses to computer-generated art. Psychology of Aesthet- ics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(2):177, 2018.
  43. Justin Kruger, Derrick Wirtz, Leaf Van Boven, and T William Altermatt. The effort heuris- tic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1):91-98, 2004.
  44. Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow. Chokepoint Capitalism: How Big Tech and Big Content Captured Creative Labor Markets and How We'll Win Them Back. Beacon Press, 2022.
  45. Sophie Bishop. Algorithmic experts: Selling algorithmic lore on YouTube. Social Media+ Society, 6(1):2056305119897323, 2020.
  46. Ziv Epstein, Matthew Groh, Abhimanyu Dubey, and Alex Pentland. Social influence leads to the formation of diverse local trends. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2):1-18, 2021.
  47. Jason K Eshraghian. Human ownership of artificial creativity. Nature Machine Intelli- gence, 2(3):157-160, 2020.
  48. Peter Henderson, Xuechen Li, Dan Jurafsky, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Mark A Lemley, and Percy Liang. Foundation models and fair use. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15715, 2023. · arXiv
  49. Thomas Margoni and Martin Kretschmer. A deeper look into the EU text and data mining exceptions: harmonisation, data ownership, and the future of technology. GRUR Interna- tional, 71(8):685-701, 2022.
  50. Pierre N Leval. Toward a fair use standard. Harvard Law Review, 103(5):1105-1136, 1990.
  51. Gowthami Somepalli, Vasu Singla, Micah Goldblum, Jonas Geiping, and Tom Goldstein. Diffusion art or digital forgery? Investigating data replication in diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.03860, 2022. · arXiv
  52. James Grimmelmann. Copyright for literate robots. Iowa Law Review, 101:657, 2015.
  53. Benjamin LW Sobel. Artificial intelligence's fair use crisis. Columbia Journal of Law & Arts, 41:45, 2017.
  54. Mark A Lemley and Bryan Casey. Fair learning. Texas Law Review, 99:743, 2020.
  55. Saffron Huang and Divya Siddarth. Generative ai and the digital commons. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11074, 2023. · arXiv
  56. Nicholas Carlini, Jamie Hayes, Milad Nasr, Matthew Jagielski, Vikash Sehwag, Florian Tramer, Borja Balle, Daphne Ippolito, and Eric Wallace. Extracting training data from diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13188, 2023. · arXiv
  57. Shawn Shan, Jenna Cryan, Emily Wenger, Haitao Zheng, Rana Hanocka, and Ben Y Zhao. Glaze: Protecting artists from style mimicry by text-to-image models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04222, 2023. · arXiv
  58. Eli Berman, John Bound, and Stephen Machin. Implications of skill-biased technological change: International evidence. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(4):1245-1279, 1998.
  59. Wassily Leontief. Machines and man. Scientific American, 187(3):150-164, 1952.
  60. John Maynard Keynes and John Maynard Keynes. Economic possibilities for our grand- children. Springer, 2010.
  61. Daron Acemoglu and David Autor. Skills, tasks and technologies: Implications for em- ployment and earnings. In Handbook of labor economics, volume 4, pages 1043-1171. Elsevier, 2011.
  62. Morgan R Frank, David Autor, James E Bessen, Erik Brynjolfsson, Manuel Cebrian, David J Deming, Maryann Feldman, Matthew Groh, José Lobo, Esteban Moro, et al. Toward understanding the impact of artificial intelligence on labor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(14):6531-6539, 2019.
  63. Erik Brynjolfsson, Tom Mitchell, and Daniel Rock. What can machines learn, and what does it mean for occupations and the economy? In AEA papers and proceedings, volume 108, pages 43-47, 2018.
  64. Jichen Zhu, Antonios Liapis, Sebastian Risi, Rafael Bidarra, and G Michael Young- blood. Explainable AI for designers: A human-centered perspective on mixed-initiative co-creation. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG), pages 1-8. IEEE, 2018.
  65. Elizabeth B-N Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design, 4(1):5-18, 2008.
  66. Peter Knees, Andres Ferraro, and Moritz Hübler. Bias and feedback loops in music recom- mendation: Studies on record label impact. In Workshop of Multi-Objective Recommender Systems (MORS'22), in conjunction with the 16th ACM Conference on Recommender Sys- tems, RecSys, volume 22, page 2022, 2022.
  67. Neil Leach. Architecture in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: An introduction to AI for architects. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2022.
  68. Carl Benedikt Frey. The technology trap. In The Technology Trap. Princeton University Press, 2019.
  69. Christoph Fuchs, Martin Schreier, and Stijn MJ Van Osselaer. The handmade effect: What's love got to do with it? Journal of marketing, 79(2):98-110, 2015.
  70. Josh A Goldstein, Girish Sastry, Micah Musser, Renee DiResta, Matthew Gentzel, and Ka- terina Sedova. Generative language models and automated influence operations: Emerg- ing threats and potential mitigations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04246, 2023. · arXiv
  71. Huy H Nguyen, Junichi Yamagishi, and Isao Echizen. Capsule-forensics: Using cap- sule networks to detect forged images and videos. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pages 2307-2311. IEEE, 2019.
  72. Shehzeen Hussain, Paarth Neekhara, Malhar Jere, Farinaz Koushanfar, and Julian McAuley. Adversarial deepfakes: Evaluating vulnerability of deepfake detectors to adver- sarial examples. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on applications of computer vision, pages 3348-3357, 2021.
  73. Matthew Groh. Identifying the context shift between test benchmarks and production data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.01059, 2022. · arXiv
  74. Shruti Agarwal and Hany Farid. Detecting deep-fake videos from aural and oral dynamics. In Workshop on Media Forensics at CVPR, 2021, pages 981-989, 2021.
  75. Matyáš Boháček and Hany Farid. Protecting world leaders against deep fakes using fa- cial, gestural, and vocal mannerisms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(48):e2216035119, 2022.
  76. Gordon Pennycook and David G Rand. The psychology of fake news. Trends in cognitive sciences, 25(5):388-402, 2021. 100. Gordon Pennycook, Ziv Epstein, Mohsen Mosleh, Antonio Arechar, Dean Eckles, and David Rand. Understanding and reducing the spread of misinformation online. ACR North American Advances, 2020. 101. Ziv Epstein, Nathaniel Sirlin, Antonio Arechar, Gordon Pennycook, and David Rand. The social media context interferes with truth discernment. Science Advances, 9(9):eabo6169, 2023. 102. William J Brady, Molly J Crockett, and Jay J Van Bavel. The MAD model of moral contagion: The role of motivation, attention, and design in the spread of moralized content online. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4):978-1010, 2020. 103. William J Brady, Julian A Wills, John T Jost, Joshua A Tucker, and Jay J Van Bavel. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28):7313-7318, 2017. 104. Jonah Berger and Katherine L Milkman. What makes online content viral? Journal of marketing research, 49(2):192-205, 2012. 105. Ziv Epstein, Hause Lin, Gordon Pennycook, and David Rand. Quantifying attention via dwell time and engagement in a social media browsing environment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.10464, 2022. 106. Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380):1146-1151, 2018. 107. Jonas L Juul and Johan Ugander. Comparing information diffusion mechanisms by matching on cascade size. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(46):e2100786118, 2021. 108. · arXiv
  77. Eryn J Newman, Maryanne Garry, Daniel M Bernstein, Justin Kantner, and D Stephen Lindsay. Nonprobative photographs (or words) inflate truthiness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19:969-974, 2012. 109. Chloe Wittenberg, Ben M Tappin, Adam J Berinsky, and David G Rand. The (minimal) persuasive advantage of political video over text. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(47):e2114388118, 2021. 110. Matthew Groh, Ziv Epstein, Chaz Firestone, and Rosalind Picard. Deepfake detection by human crowds, machines, and machine-informed crowds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(1):e2110013119, 2022. 111. Maurice Jakesch, Advait Bhat, Daniel Buschek, Lior Zalmanson, and Mor Naaman. Co- writing with opinionated language models affects users' views. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '23, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery. 112. Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, Bjarke Mørch Mønsted, Philipp Hövel, and Sune Lehmann. Ac- celerating dynamics of collective attention. Nature Communications, 10(1):1759, 2019. 113. Hany Farid. Creating, using, misusing, and detecting deep fakes. Journal of Online Trust and Safety, 1(4), 2022. 114. Grant Fergusson, Caitriona Fitzgerald, Chris Frascella, Megan Iorio, Tom McBrien, Calli Schroeder, Ben Winters, and Enid Zhou. Generating harms: Generative AI's impact & paths forward. Electronic Privacy Information Center, 2023. 115. Emma Strubell, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. Energy and policy considera- tions for deep learning in nlp. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.02243, 2019. 116. Laura Westra and Bill Lawson. Faces of environmental racism: Confronting issues of global justice. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001. 117. Alexandre Lacoste, Alexandra Luccioni, Victor Schmidt, and Thomas Dandres. Quanti- fying the carbon emissions of machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.09700, 2019. 118. Lasse F Wolff Anthony, Benjamin Kanding, and Raghavendra Selvan. Carbontracker: Tracking and predicting the carbon footprint of training deep learning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.03051, 2020. 119. Peter Henderson, Jieru Hu, Joshua Romoff, Emma Brunskill, Dan Jurafsky, and Joelle Pineau. Towards the systematic reporting of the energy and carbon footprints of machine learning. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(1):10039-10081, 2020. 120. Mary L Gray and Siddharth Suri. Ghost work: How to stop Silicon Valley from building a new global underclass. Eamon Dolan Books, 2019. 121. P Kalluri. Don't ask if artificial intelligence is good or fair, ask how it shifts power. Nature., 2020. 122. Shoshana Zuboff. Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1):75-89, 2015. 123. Neil Savage. How AI and neuroscience drive each other forwards. Nature, 571(7766):S15-S15, 2019. 124. Terence Broad, Sebastian Berns, Simon Colton, and Mick Grierson. Active divergence with generative deep learning-a survey and taxonomy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.05599, 2021. 125. Marvin Zammit, Antonios Liapis, and Georgios N Yannakakis. Seeding diversity into AI art. 2022. 126. Aaron Hertzmann. Toward modeling creative processes for algorithmic painting. In Pro- ceedings of the International Conference on Computational Creativity, 2022. 127. Ziv Epstein, Hope Schroeder, and Dava Newman. When happy accidents spark creativ- ity: Bringing collaborative speculation to life with generative AI. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Creativity, 2022. 128. Simon Colton, Amy Smith, Sebastian Berns, Ryan Murdock, and Michael Cook. Gener- ative search engines: Initial experiments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Creativity, 2021. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Epstein, Z., Hertzmann, A., Herman, L., Mahari, R., Frank, M. R., Groh, M., Schroeder, H., Smith, A., Akten, M., Fjeld, J., Farid, H., Leach, N., Pentland, A., & Russakovsky, O.
Affiliations
  • MIT Media Lab (US)
  • Adobe Systems (United States) (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Florida International University (US)
  • Princeton University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2306.04141
arXiv
2306.04141
OpenAlex
W4379933478
Cited by
21
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Art, Technology, and Culture
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Technology's Impact on Media
Keywords
generative AI, creative process, artistic creation, concept art, AI-generated art, aesthetics, cultural influence, media ecosystem, AI policy, technology and creativity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review