📝 SummarXiv

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate machine intelligence through artistic creativity by employing a modified version of the Turing Test inspired by Lady Lovelace. It investigates two hypotheses: whether human judges can reliably distinguish AI-generated artworks from human-created ones and whether AI-generated art achieves comparable aesthetic value to human-crafted works. The research contributes to understanding machine creativity and its implications for cognitive science and AI technology. Participants with educational backgrounds in cognitive and computer science play the role of interrogators and evaluated whether a set of paintings was AI-generated or human-created. Here, we utilise parallel-paired and viva voce versions of the Turing Test. Additionally, aesthetic evaluations are collected to compare the perceived quality of AI-generated images against human-created art. This dual-method approach allows us to examine human judgment under different testing conditions. We find that participants struggle to distinguish between AI-generated and human-created artworks reliably, performing no better than chance under certain conditions. Furthermore, AI-generated art is rated as aesthetically as human-crafted works. Our findings challenge traditional assumptions about human creativity and demonstrate that AI systems can generate outputs that resonate with human sensibilities while meeting the criteria of creative intelligence. This study advances the understanding of machine creativity by combining elements of the Turing and Lovelace Tests. Unlike prior studies focused on laypeople or artists, this research examines participants with domain expertise. It also provides a comparative analysis of two distinct testing methodologies (parallel-paired and viva voce) offering new insights into the evaluation of machine intelligence.