Know Your Author: Does the AI Penalty Hold in Short Fiction?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00006v1
• Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 22:22:49 GMT
• Title: Know Your Author: Does the AI Penalty Hold in Short Fiction?
• Abstract summary: Authorship labels did not produce reliable main effects on creativity, enjoyment, recommendation, or originality.<n>Participants' prior attitudes toward AI moderated recommendation judgments.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Public concern about an "AI penalty" suggests that labeling content as AI-generated may negatively influence how it is evaluated. We tested this claim in a preregistered experiment (N = 254, per protocol) using a pure attribution design: participants read one of two ~200-word vignettes and were randomly assigned to see it labeled as Human-written, AI-written, or presented with no author line. Authorship labels did not produce reliable main effects on creativity, enjoyment, recommendation, or originality; observed effect sizes were uniformly small. However, labels strongly influenced inferred effort: participants estimated that Human-labeled stories took far longer to create than AI-labeled stories (back-transformed geometric means from ln[minutes + 1]: 148 vs. 6 minutes). Across conditions, higher inferred effort predicted greater enjoyment, and this relationship was also present within the AI-labeled condition. Additionally, participants' prior attitudes toward AI moderated recommendation judgments: more positive attitudes were associated with higher recommendation ratings for AI-labeled stories, but not for Human-labeled stories. These findings suggest that while AI authorship labels do not systematically alter average evaluations of short fiction, they meaningfully shape perceptions of effort and interact with prior beliefs to influence downstream judgments.

Related papers

• Warning labels shift perceptions of sycophantic AI, but not its influence [63.79516339973759]
  We test whether warning labels mitigate sycophancy's influence.<n>Labeling the system as sycophantic (...may agree with you and validate you even when you are wrong...'') does shift users' perceptions.<n>But it does not reliably reduce sycophancy's influence on users' self-perceived rightness or their willingness to repair the conflict.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-19T11:01:45Z)
• Gaming AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Poses New Risks to the Scientific Community [33.39468805524881]
  We show that AI-mediated peer review is vulnerable to a simple, low-cost manipulation.<n>We see this across disciplines and publication venues, for both human-written and AI-generated papers.<n>Our results suggest that AI tools should not be treated as neutral evaluators in high-stakes peer review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-08T20:38:06Z)
• Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation [51.53099943385505]
  This position paper argues that today's AI systems should not be used to produce paper reviews.<n>We identify two critical issues: 1) AI reviewers exhibit a hivemind effect of excessive agreement within and across papers that reduces perspective diversity.<n>We argue that addressing the peer review crisis requires a science of peer review automation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T22:41:04Z)
• Incentives shape how humans co-create with generative AI [3.182696575286433]
  We show that incentives mediate AI's homogenizing force in a creative writing task.<n>Our results reveal that the effects of generative AI depend not only on the technology itself, but also the behavioral strategies and incentive structures surrounding its use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-04T00:18:51Z)
• Security Benefits and Side Effects of Labeling AI-Generated Images [27.771584371064968]
  We study the implications of labels, including the possibility of mislabeling.<n>We conduct a pre-registered online survey with over 1300 U.S. and EU participants.<n>We find the undesired side effect that human-made images conveying inaccurate claims were perceived as more credible in the presence of labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T20:24:45Z)
• Labeling Messages as AI-Generated Does Not Reduce Their Persuasive Effects [33.16943695290958]
  One prominent policy proposal requires explicitly labeling AI-generated content to increase transparency and encourage critical thinking about the information.<n>We conducted a survey experiment on a diverse sample of Americans.<n>We found that messages were generally persuasive, influencing participants' views of the policies by 9.74 percentage points on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T04:22:39Z)
• Almost AI, Almost Human: The Challenge of Detecting AI-Polished Writing [55.2480439325792]
  This study systematically evaluations twelve state-of-the-art AI-text detectors using our AI-Polished-Text Evaluation dataset.<n>Our findings reveal that detectors frequently flag even minimally polished text as AI-generated, struggle to differentiate between degrees of AI involvement, and exhibit biases against older and smaller models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T18:45:37Z)
• Beyond correlation: The Impact of Human Uncertainty in Measuring the Effectiveness of Automatic Evaluation and LLM-as-a-Judge [51.93909886542317]
  We show how *relying on a single aggregate correlation score* can obscure fundamental differences between human labels and those from automatic evaluation.<n>We propose stratifying data by human label uncertainty to provide a more robust analysis of automatic evaluation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T03:08:29Z)
• Human Bias in the Face of AI: Examining Human Judgment Against Text Labeled as AI Generated [48.70176791365903]
  This study explores how bias shapes the perception of AI versus human generated content.<n>We investigated how human raters respond to labeled and unlabeled content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-29T04:31:45Z)
• The Role of AI in Drug Discovery: Challenges, Opportunities, and Strategies [97.5153823429076]
  The benefits, challenges and drawbacks of AI in this field are reviewed. The use of data augmentation, explainable AI, and the integration of AI with traditional experimental methods are also discussed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-08T23:23:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.