Latest news with #SheenaIyengar
CNN
24-06-2025
- Entertainment
- CNN
Will AI Replace Human Artists? One Study Says Not Yet - Terms of Service with Clare Duffy - Podcast on CNN Audio
Clare Duffy 00:00:01 'Welcome to another episode of Terms of Service. I'm Clare Duffy. If you've been on the internet at all in the past few years, whether you realized it or not, you've probably come across art that was generated by AI. With programs like Midjourney and DALL-E, which were trained on visual data from across the internet, users can generate images from text prompts in just seconds. Some of these images are beautiful and striking, but a lot of them have contributed to a growing AI slop problem across the internet. And all of this has artists worried about their jobs in a field where it can already be challenging to get viewers' attention. Legal battles have started to emerge over this AI-generated art, too. Earlier this month, Disney and Universal teamed up to sue Midjourney, claiming its AI-generated images of their famous characters violate copyright law. And this trend raises an even bigger question too, what does all this mean for the future of art and creativity? We probably can't answer this in a single episode, but I'm excited to have Sheena Iyengar here to help me think about where to start. Sheena is a professor at Columbia Business School where she and two PhD students recently published a fascinating study about people's perceptions of art. And how that perception changes if the art was generated by AI rather than created by humans. In the study, she showed participants art that was labeled as AI-generated, as well as art labeled as human-generated and had viewers rate them. We'll get into it all, but spoiler alert, people still seem to like human-made art better. Clare Duffy 00:01:45 Hi, Sheena, thank you for being here. Sheena Iyengar 00:01:47 Hi, thank for having me. Clare Duffy 00:01:49 'So it feels like AI-generated art has exploded over the past couple of years with more people using Midjourney and DALL-E and other programs that you describe the image that you want to create and then it pops out a result. When did you first start noticing this phenomenon? Sheena Iyengar 00:02:08 'It was in 2020 when the world was shut down. I actually ran across this pretty well-known computer, well, he's a mechanical engineering professor but does stuff using generative AI. And so I discovered that he was making a robot, a robot that he called an artist. And so what he did was he fed the code all kinds of things, like leaves, trees, everything. It was over a million different let's call them like pieces. And so then what he would do is he would ask the robot to create a piece of art. Now, he didn't train it on what art to create, but he absolutely fed it pieces of art that had been successful. So... Clare Duffy 00:03:07 And this is like a physical humanoid robot? Sheena Iyengar 00:03:10 'Think of it as a printer. Okay. And it would literally in 24 hours, create a painting. And he actually had examples of these paintings. And he was training it to make impressionist art. And we actually showed pictures of these impressionist paintings that were created by this artist, AI artist. And people could not tell that it wasn't made by a human. So that was my first introduction. I saw this and I was like, hmm. This is interesting. What does this mean for creativity? What does it mean for the difference between human made versus non-human made? Clare Duffy 00:03:56 Why is it that this technology and the outputs of it have improved so much in the past few years? Like it feels like back in 2020, 2021, a lot of the AI generated images you would get would be pretty cartoonish. It was obvious that they were not real, but now you are more and more seeing very photorealistic images coming out of these AI generators. Why is that? Sheena Iyengar 00:04:21 I mean, you could ask the same question for lots of technologies. It doesn't have to just be AI art, right? I mean why did the, initially when you had the camera that came out in the 19th century, you know, artists didn't think it was beginning to become competition, but you know pretty fast it became better and better and better. Of course we all get better and better because what's it doing? It's iterating. Just like a human being, we're iterating, you know? You see it and he's, ah, that's wrong. Let me fix that part. Then you iterate again, and you fix that. Now, did the camera actually kill art? Well, no. Did it kill portraits? Yeah, right? Because it's cheaper, you could be more precise, and you can be faster to just take a photo of someone than have someone actually make a portrait of you. Just like with the camera, the average individual Suddenly has access to something they didn't used to have you know every single one of us can now take a selfie. That's kind of And every single individual can now also take an idea that they're trying to explain to their friends or they're just trying to be therapeutic with themselves and be artistic and they can now take this app and it sort of levels the playing field. Are we all gonna be equal? No. Are some of us going to be better at using the generative AI to make art? Yeah. And we're gonna be more creative about it and that'll become its own art form. And that's what you're seeing. Clare Duffy 00:05:58 'So now that we know a bit more about how AI-generated art is made, what do humans make of the art that's created by computers? That's after the break. 00:06:11 'Okay, so Sheena, you recently worked with two Columbia Business School doctoral students to research how people react to AI-generated art compared to how they perceive human-made art. What question were you trying to answer exactly? Sheena Iyengar 00:06:27 'So we looked at two things. First, can people actually tell the difference between art that's been made by the human versus the non-human? It turns out we really can't. Even though people swear they can tell them apart, they actually don't know if it's human or non-human made. But if they it's been made by a human they will price it higher. So that means they value it more than if they think it was been made by AI. Clare Duffy 00:07:02 And how did you go about this research? What kinds of art did you show the study participants? Sheena Iyengar 00:07:08 'Well, we couldn't show them art that's famous, right, because then they know. Although you'd be surprised because there's times when I show people the initial self-portrait that Picasso made of himself and people now increasingly tell me, oh, that must have been made by AI. But we, you know, this is a few years ago, so people weren't quite as savvy or at least as convinced that everything is made by AI. So, you know we just showed them art that wasn't famous. Uh, and in some cases we had them tell us, do you think this was made by human or AI? Uh, in some case, as we told them it was made by a human or AI, and, you know, obviously we didn't tell them the truth. And then we asked them to price it or how much they would sell it for. So that was the basic design. Clare Duffy 00:08:02 'And so what did you find? It sounds like people do value human-made art above AI-made art, at least for now, if they can tell the difference. Sheena Iyengar 00:08:14 If they believe it was made by the human, so it could have actually been made by AI, but if they thought and labeled it themselves as being made by a human, then they priced it higher. Clare Duffy 00:08:26 And how much higher are we talking, like hundreds of dollars more or? Sheena Iyengar 00:08:31 Oh, I wouldn't focus on the exact price because we didn't tell them this was fancy art. Clare Duffy 00:08:38 What surprised you most about your findings? Sheena Iyengar 00:08:42 'I was mildly surprised that they couldn't tell them apart. I didn't expect that. I suppose after we observed that, I was no longer surprised. We actually even tried it for fun. We actually put it in the Columbia Business School on the main TV screens as you walked in, and we had random people, like MBA students, as they're walking in vote. They couldn't tell either. So I was a little surprised by that. I go back and forth as to whether I'm surprised by the fact that people value something they believed was human made as higher. So of course, if I know that this is let's say a handmade rug versus a machine-made rug, then of course we take it as a given. We would pay more for the handmade thing. So in that sense, it's not surprising. Clare Duffy 00:09:44 'Did any of the survey participants sort of elaborate on that piece, why they felt like the human-made art is more valuable? Is it just because artists put a lot of heart and soul into their works, whereas AI doesn't have heart or soul? Sheena Iyengar 00:09:59 'Yeah. So people think that if it's made by a human, there's more intentionality behind it, that there's a story. I mean, the reason why you made this guy in the way you did is because there's something related to, I don't know, your personal story or, you know, something you saw that you were trying to communicate to the rest of us to see a kind of meaning. Whereas if it is generated by a non-human, you know, it's just random. It doesn't feel meaningful. Clare Duffy 00:10:30 'Has this study changed how you think about AI-generated art? Sheena Iyengar 00:10:36 'Yes, so my Ph.D. student and collaborator, Carl Blaine Horton, I remember he first brought me this idea. I was like, yeah, why would anyone want this AI thing? I mean, it's just weird. You can't call that a real artist. And then he started to send me poems. Because, you know, before AI art, they were doing all this, like, poems and they would be tested by some touring prize or whatever. And he's like sending me these poems and I'm like, no, no you can't like come on a poem has meaning to it. And he said to me so what if seeing something even if it was randomly generated by a non-human gave you ideas that you otherwise wouldn't have had. Would you consider that meaningless? I said well I guess you're right. It is, it could be used for that. I don't know if you know this, but I am blind, and I love to go to art galleries and learn about the new art. And I will tell you that one of the displays which really fascinated me was we went in and they had like a million new colors that were generated on a canvas using a computer software. I thought to myself, hmm, that's very interesting. People might actually start to create more colors that they otherwise might not have thought of and they might not have thought for two big reasons. A, we're so used to seeing certain color patterns in our everyday life that we're naturally going to put certain colors together or assume certain variations in color just because of habit. Imagine if there was another entity that didn't have to worry about your predisposed biases and could just be egalitarian and create whatever it wants to without thought to the past. That could be very interesting. And so that was one thing that struck me. And then the second thing that struck me is even if it has no intentionality, which clearly it wouldn't, it could still teach me something. So I believe that the camera taught people something about their world, that they didn't see as easily or as clearly or as precisely as they learn to see through the use of the camera. And I think the same thing applies here. Clare Duffy 00:13:47 'That's so interesting. Yeah, I hadn't thought about that idea that, like, the creativity of it, the sort of randomness of it could potentially create something new in a positive way. I also think when we talk about the reaction to AI-generated art, we also have to talk about the reaction from human artists who have raised concerns example, their works have been used to train AI without their consent. How big a concern is that in your mind? Sheena Iyengar 00:14:19 So I do think they deserve IP, you know, they are using their art for which they would have normally gotten paid. So I think, you know, I think the same principles that we normally apply to patents or trademarks should apply here. I think the laws just have to catch up to that. Clare Duffy 00:14:40 Yeah. I'm wondering if, based on your research, you think the worry that AI could put artists out of work is a valid one? Like, should artists be worried about their livelihoods at this juncture? Sheena Iyengar 00:14:56 'I think so, I'm sure. So if you were the artist that only made portraits and you're not willing to change, it'll be a problem. So one of the examples that I use is the case of Picasso. He had two self-portraits. There's one self-portrait he did in 1901 and another self-portrait that he did 1907. There's a huge difference between those. And that's because he, during those ensuing years, is dabbling and trying to form a new style that will now have greater value given the advent of the camera. Now he gets influenced by impressionists, and then he mixes that with his with the influences of African art. And that's what leads him to eventually, starting in 1906 with La Demoiselle d'Avignon, he starts to create this new art form called Cubism. So sure, if he stayed with his style in 1901, he wasn't gonna go anywhere. Clare Duffy 00:16:18 'This was something I was going to ask, and now I'm almost even more curious what you're going to answer based on our conversation thus far, but it was a question for me going into this, like should we even consider AI-generated art to be art in the first place or if there's something else that we should call it? What is your thought on that? Sheena Iyengar 00:16:36 So, a human made it, in the sense that a human decided what it would be. And in the end, it's not AI that gets to decide if you like it or if you found it interesting or meaningful. That judgment still resides with humans. So I think, look, if you're willing to say that this thing that a camera took, you know, held in a human hand, is art because of the way in which the photographer took it. Same thing, I don't see why the principle is different. Clare Duffy 00:17:26 'In your research, it sounds like at least in some of the cases, you labeled the pieces that you were showing, the study participants, human-made art or AI-made art. But of course, in the wild, it can be really difficult, increasingly so, to tell if a piece of art online has been AI-generated. Do you think that that labeling is important It's like going forward? Sheena Iyengar 00:17:54 Absolutely. Clare Duffy 00:17:54 Why? Sheena Iyengar 00:17:54 Because the same reason why other things, you know, like masterpieces in the old days, you want to know whether it was like, it was just a replica or whether it was the original. Same thing with, you know jewelry or as we were talking about rugs, I don't know why I'm so fixated on rugs. I recently got a handmade rug. So it's about took three years to hand make this silk rock. Clare Duffy 00:18:23 Wow. Sheena Iyengar 00:18:25 And it absolutely, you can, I mean, I'm blind, but everyone tells me you can immediately tell that it's different from a machine made thing. Now, even if you couldn't tell, I think most people would feel cheated if they didn't know that it was handmade versus machine made. It just, it does have some greater value. Clare Duffy 00:18:54 Well, and the idea that somebody put time, like time and life into something feels meaningful in some way at least. I'm curious too, I mean we've talked a lot about art that people will see on a screen, but I wonder if, given your findings, you think there is going to be a movement towards more people going to see art in person in museums or galleries. Sheena Iyengar 00:19:20 I think you're already beginning to see that, right? They are, even if you go to the galleries, there's much more emphasis on tactile experiences, auditory experiences. I mean, even recently, if you went to the Biennale, right, there's a lot more of really trying to address other senses other than visual. Clare Duffy 00:19:45 On that note, I'm curious, I mean, because you mentioned that you're blind, do you see a world where AI could make art more accessible to blind folks? Sheena Iyengar 00:19:59 Yeah, I mean, you know, we we often think blind people don't have visuals in their mind. But actually, a large part of your visual life has very little to do with your sight. So I constantly live in a visual life, I am constantly trying to describe things in a way that other people will see it in my head. Make all kinds of visuals. So sure, nowadays you could have a blind person interact with AI and here's a way you could make a collaboration between human and AI something very interesting, right? You could take a blind person and put AI in their hands and now suddenly that blind person could show the sighted what they see. Clare Duffy 00:20:57 Hmm yeah... Sheena Iyengar 00:20:58 That would create value. Clare Duffy 00:20:59 Have you tried that? Sheena Iyengar 00:21:01 No, but I just got the idea as I was talking to you. Clare Duffy 00:21:05 I'm like, I want to do it now. That sounds really interesting. Sheena Iyengar 00:21:11 Yeah, and you could even imagine not just any kind of person, like a deaf person. Clare Duffy 00:21:16 Yeah, I mean, really, I can imagine anybody. We all have sort of inner lives and inner worlds that we think about in different ways. What do you think that we, as consumers of art, should consider next time we come across a piece of AI generated art. Sheena Iyengar 00:21:34 Well, I think you should always ask yourself, what does this enable me to discover or see or learn that I didn't think about before? And that's true no matter what. I mean, you know, if you think of like Andy Warhol and, you know, Campbell Soup Cans, right? He gave us a new way to see those. Unto itself, you wouldn't say it was particularly, you know hard to do. Clare Duffy 00:22:08 Right, that perspective. Sheena Iyengar 00:22:09 Yeah, he just gave us a new to think about our lives, the world, Campbell Soup cans. Clare Duffy 00:22:16 That's valuable. Yeah, that's interesting. Is there anything I didn't ask you that you think is important to mention about this? Sheena Iyengar 00:22:24 I think there's always a new technology and when that new technology takes over our lives, we get worried. And that's not just true of art, it's true of anything, I mean the car, you know, now we forget how much disruption at the time the car created, or the train. But we as humans are so good at adapting such that we now give ourselves new jobs to do. And I think we shouldn't underappreciate that. Clare Duffy 00:23:07 Yeah, it's so interesting. A big part of the promise of AI, broadly, is like it will take up some of the sort of busy work tasks that people don't want to do and leave more time for things like creativity and human expression. Sheena Iyengar 00:23:24 I doubt that'll be true. I think it'll just mean that you're going to do a lot more in the same amount of time. I mean, did the car really, like how did the car change our lives? Well, you now could own a house because you could live further away. Nice. Did it actually reduce the amount of time you work? No. Clare Duffy 00:23:47 Yeah. Sheena Iyengar 00:23:50 Not a bigger house. Clare Duffy 00:23:52 The expectation is that you can go farther for work. Sheena Iyengar 00:23:53 Same thing happened with Zoom. Clare Duffy 00:23:55 Yeah. Sheena Iyengar 00:23:56 You're still working. If anything, you might even be working longer hours. They made it easier for you to get out of bed and get to work. Clare Duffy 00:24:03 Yeah, it all turns in that direction, unfortunately. Well, Sheena, thank you so much for doing this. Really appreciate it. Sheena Iyengar 00:24:11 Thank you. Clare Duffy 00:24:14 'So if you're concerned about how AI-generated art is going to impact human artists or human expression, here are a few things to keep in mind based on my conversation with Sheena. According to Sheena's study, people still tend to value art that's fully made by humans more than AI-generated art, even though it can sometimes be hard to tell the two apart. So it seems like human creativity still carries that extra spark. We'll link to Sheena and her team's research in the show notes. Remember that even AI-generated art typically has some kind of human intention behind it, even if it's something as simple as a text prompt. As far as honoring artists' work and making it clear when an AI tool is drawing from existing art, that's an ongoing conversation in boardrooms and courtrooms right now. And if you want to support human artists, consider buying their art or going to see it in person, in a gallery or museum. Thanks for tuning in to today's episode of Terms of Service. I'm Clare Duffy, catch you next week.
News Lens
02-06-2025
- Business
- News Lens
Thinkers50創新大師希娜．艾恩嘉來台，解鎖創新六步驟，助企業創新突圍 - TNL The News Lens 關鍵評論網
創新大師希娜．艾恩嘉來台演講，分享「破框思維」的創新六步驟，並與台灣產學界領袖對談，探討如何在VUCA時代有效創新。論壇資訊請參考官網。 面對快速變遷的全球局勢，台灣企業如何有效激發創新動能，突圍升級？ 天下雜誌與玉山金控攜手舉辦的第十二屆「國際大師論壇」，將於2025年6月24日在台北國際會議中心隆重登場，邀請到Thinkers50創新大師希娜．艾恩嘉（Sheena Iyengar）重磅來台灣演講，分享有成效的創新方法。 艾恩嘉是哥倫比亞大學商學院教授，研究決策與創新30年，實務經驗豐富，顧問服務的企業包括Google、Deloitte、Bloomberg等跨領域頂尖國際企業，是備受推崇的創新管理大師。 告別天馬行空與無效激盪：一套務實的創新六步驟 面對當前變化快速（Volatility）、不確定性高（Uncertainty）、複雜（Complexity）、模糊（Ambiguity）的VUCA環境，舊有的思維模式往往難以應對。艾恩嘉的「破框思維」就是一套創造新選擇的有效創新方法。唯有透過能夠真正解決問題、創造價值的創新，企業才能在充滿挑戰的市場中成功突圍，開創可持續的發展道路。 艾恩嘉強調，真正的創新並非漫無目的的發想，而是一套有系統、可執行的流程。她的新書《破框思維的技術》提供一套務實創新方法，從「選定問題」到「第三視角驗證」分為六個步驟，協助企業精準鎖定問題核心，拆解複雜挑戰，並透過比較多方需求、搜尋多元解方組合等環節，有條理地創造出真正能解決問題、帶來價值的創新方案。這套方法引導決策者在眾多可能性中做出「有效選擇」，避免資源浪費在不切實際的點子上。 重量級對談激盪創新火花：產學界領袖共探破框之道 本次論壇除了艾恩嘉教授的主題演講外，更邀請台灣創新經驗豐富的產學專家與艾恩嘉教授共同激盪，包括玉山金控及玉山銀行董事長黃男州、Appier執行長暨共同創辦人游直翰與台科大資訊管理系特聘教授盧希鵬。 這場跨界對談將從不同角度切入，分享「破框思維」在企業實務、科技創新與學術研究上的應用與價值，勢必為與會者帶來更豐富多元的啟發。 關於國際大師論壇：與全球頂尖思想家面對面交流 自2012年起，天下雜誌與玉山金控共同舉辦的「國際大師論壇」持續為台灣企業引進全球領先的管理思維，助力企業提升競爭力，掌握未來發展的關鍵。 本次國際大師論壇聚焦於「破框思維」的核心——創造「有效選擇」的創新，邀請到艾恩嘉教授及其領銜的重量級與談人，正是希望幫助台灣企業管理者掌握在當前環境下至關重要的創新思維與實踐方法 論壇資訊 論壇時間：2025年6月24日 14:00-16:30 論壇地點：台北國際會議中心 三樓大會堂 論壇官網： 責任編輯：Joanna核稿編輯：楊士範
Time Business News
26-05-2025
- Health
- Time Business News
I Let a Yes or No Wheel Decide My Life for 24 Hours - Here's What Happened
Ever feel stuck in decision fatigue? Like you're overthinking everything from what to eat… to what to do with your life? Yeah — that was me. Until I handed the wheel (literally) to a Yes or No spinner. It sounded dumb. But desperation will have you trying strange things. And in just 24 hours, something shifted. Something big. You know that feeling when your brain feels fried, even though you haven't done anything 'hard' today? That's decision fatigue kicking in. We're hit with 35,000+ decisions every day, from 'What shirt should I wear?' to 'Should I finally quit this job?' The worst part? Overthinking steals your energy, creativity, and confidence. You stay stuck in your head… and nothing actually changes. You scroll more. Start more things. Finish none. You think you need another planner, productivity hack, or 'motivation.' But what if all you needed was a stupidly simple tool… I didn't expect much. But I was burnt out , and I needed a break from my brain. So I opened a Yes or No Wheel online, the kind that gives random 'yes' or 'no' answers when you spin it. Then I let it control my life for 24 hours. No joke. Every decision that wasn't life-threatening? The wheel decided. Want to know what happened? Why trusting a random Yes or No wheel unlocked clarity I didn't know I needed unlocked clarity I didn't know I needed The 3 surprising benefits of giving up control (temporarily) How to try this safely for yourself — without wrecking your life for yourself — without wrecking your life The emotional rollercoaster I didn't see coming Why you're likely avoiding decisions that could change everything Let me take you hour by hour. 7:00 AM: Should I skip snooze and actually get up? → Wheel says YES Ugh. Brutal. But okay. 8:00 AM: Should I finally go for a run after months? → YES again Fine. Laced up. Almost died. Felt amazing after. 9:00 AM: Coffee or tea? → NO to coffee Now it's personal. But then came the real questions. Should I message that friend I've been ghosting out of anxiety? → YES. Heart racing. I texted. They replied. We talked. The air cleared. Should I post that business idea I've been scared to share online? → YES. Nervous af. But I did it. Got 27 comments. A DM. And an opportunity. By noon, the wheel wasn't just making random choices. It was dragging me out of my own way. This isn't just woo-woo. Decision-making fatigue is real, and researchers at Columbia University found that limiting choices increases satisfaction and follow-through. 'When we surrender small decisions to randomness, we reduce cognitive load — freeing our brain for deeper focus and emotional clarity.' — Dr. Sheena Iyengar, author of The Art of Choosing Sounds fancy, but here's the bottom line: Letting go of control helps you regain it. Here's the ugly truth: You already know what you want. But you're scared to admit it. So you overthink, delay, 'analyze,' and stay stuck . I used the wheel as an excuse. A scapegoat. 'Oh well, the wheel said yes, so I had to…' But that tiny permission slip? It made me move. And once you move… Momentum kicks in. Most decisions aren't as big as you think. You'll survive bad coffee. You'll recover from awkward texts. But you won't recover from never trying. Fear loses power when you act fast. Spin. Decide. Do. Before your brain talks you out of it. Clarity comes from action, not thought. Want to stop feeling stuck? Do the thing. Anything. Especially the scary thing. Don't be reckless. But if you're stuck in a loop of 'should I or shouldn't I,' try this: Pick 5–10 non-life-threatening decisions you've been overthinking decisions you've been overthinking Use the free Yes or No Wheel online Commit to following the answer immediately Journal how you feel after each one Pro Tip: Start small. And never ask it about things like quitting your job or breaking up. Be smart. You don't need to give up your life to randomness. But you do need a break from perfectionism. That blog post you're scared to publish? That message you keep writing and deleting? What if the wheel said yes? And you just… did it? I dare you. Right now. Pull up a Yes or No wheel. Ask 3 questions you've been avoiding. Then do what it says. Come back here and drop a comment with what happened. Imagine Who You'd Be If You Stopped Hesitating What if confidence wasn't a personality trait…but a skill you build through decisions? Even tiny ones? You don't have to give the wheel control forever. But for a day? It might just give you your power back. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
