The exact text we saved

This is the version exactly as it was saved, character for character. The SHA-256 hash below is a 64-character code worked out from that text. Run the same text through SHA-256 and you get the same code; change a single letter and the code comes out completely different. Each version also stores the previous version’s hash, which chains them together so no version can be swapped out quietly.

TRUVACE RECORD VERSION
record: TRV-2026-2723
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-11-12T17:14:45.373271Z
status: published
lens: p_space
sector: entertainment
headline: Bias against artificial intelligence in visual art: A meta-analysis.
dek: Artificial intelligence (AI) has become integral to many visual art practices. Audiences, however, may be biased against AI in visual art: knowing that AI was used in art creation can diminish aesthetic experience, independently of the objective qualities of an artwork. Whether this bias occurs structurally and across the systems involved in an aesthetic experience remains an open question. To address this, a meta-analysis was conducted. The results showed significant negative but small pooled effect sizes for d…
gain_title: (none)
problem_title: A meta-analysis of studies on audience responses found that knowing AI was used to make visual art lowered ratings, with a small negative effect for sensory-motor and emotion-valuation measures and a moderate one for knowledge-meaning measures.
trace_subject: (none)
gain_reading: (none)
gain_evidence: (none)
problem_reading: A meta-analysis of studies on audience responses found that knowing AI was used to make visual art lowered ratings, with a small negative effect for sensory-motor and emotion-valuation measures and a moderate one for knowledge-meaning measures.
problem_evidence: significant negative but small pooled effect sizes | a significant negative moderate pooled effect size was found
quick_read: A meta-analysis in Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts pooled studies on how audiences respond to visual art when they know AI was involved in making it. It found a negative effect on audience responses, small for the sensory-motor and emotion-valuation systems and moderate for the knowledge-meaning system.

The pooled data covered 6 studies (16 effect sizes) for sensory-motor, 27 studies (94 effect sizes) for emotion-valuation and 26 studies (49 effect sizes) for knowledge-meaning. The analysis tested whether bias is built into aesthetic experience or varies with circumstances.

The size of the bias varied with age, art style, image source and situatedness. The authors read the age pattern as suggesting a generational shift in how audiences think about AI in art. Large leftover variation led them to conclude the bias is unlikely to be structural.
limitation: Significant residual heterogeneity remained after moderator analyses, so the pooled effects do not apply uniformly across studies and contexts.
tag: Evidence-backed problem
key_points: Sensory-motor measures showed a small negative pooled effect, based on six studies and 16 effect sizes. | Emotion-valuation measures showed a small negative pooled effect, based on 27 studies and 94 effect sizes. | Knowledge-meaning measures showed a moderate negative pooled effect, based on 26 studies and 49 effect sizes. | Age significantly moderated the bias, which the authors say suggests a generational shift in attitudes to AI in art creation. | Art style, image source and situatedness also moderated how large the bias was. | Significant residual heterogeneity suggests the bias is unlikely to be structural. | The authors call for future research on invisible human and machine authorship and on AI's potential to create rich aesthetic experiences.
rundown: The meta-analysis grouped findings by the three systems involved in an aesthetic experience: sensory-motor, emotion-valuation and knowledge-meaning. The bias was weakest where responses are more perceptual and strongest where viewers interpret and assign meaning to the work.

Moderator analyses found that the bias was not uniform. Age, art style, image source and situatedness each changed its magnitude, and the age effect is read by the authors as pointing to a generational shift in audience attitudes.

Because substantial heterogeneity remained after accounting for these moderators, the authors conclude the bias is unlikely to be a fixed, structural feature of how people experience art. They recommend further work on invisible human and machine authorship.
sources:
- peer_reviewed | Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts | https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000833 | 2025-11-24
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

SHA-256 hash

5cd87b9e6aa352a6e7470f2df7dbd1f1b7b4496e0b443e0b6a4c8c4a80950166

Previous version’s hash

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000