Humans Versus AI: Whether and Why We Prefer Human-Created Compared to AI-Created Artwork

With the recent proliferation of advanced artifcial intelligence (AI) models capable of mimicking human artworks, AI creations might soon replace products of human creativity, although skeptics argue that this outcome is unlikely. One possible reason this may be unlikely is that, independent of the physical properties of art, we place great value on the imbuement of the human experience in art. An interesting question, then, is whether and why people might prefer human-compared to AI-created artworks. To explore these questions, we manipulated the purported creator of pieces of art by randomly assigning a “Human-created” or “AI-created” label to paintings actually created by AI, and then assessed participants’ judgements of the artworks across four rating criteria (Liking, Beauty, Profundity, and Worth). Study 1 found increased positive judgements for human- compared to AI-labelled art across all criteria. Study 2 aimed to replicate and extend Study 1 with additional ratings (Emotion, Story, Meaningful, Efort, and Time to create) intended to elucidate why people more-positively appraise Human-labelled artworks. The main fndings from Study 1 were replicated, with narrativity (Story) and perceived efort behind artworks (Efort) moderating the label efects (“Human-created” vs. “AI-created”), but only for the sensory-level judgements (Liking, Beauty). Positive personal attitudes toward AI moderated label efects for more-communicative judgements (Profundity, Worth). These studies demonstrate that people tend to be negatively biased against AI-created artworks relative to purportedly humancreated artwork, and suggest that knowledge of human engagement in the artistic process contributes positively to appraisals of art

Absolute and arbitrary orientation of single-molecule shapes

Introduction: Molecular and particulate nanodevices such as carbon nanotubes and semiconductor nanowires exhibit properties that are difficult to achieve with conventional silicon microfabrication. Unfortunately, most such devices must be synthesized or processed in solution. To combine nanodevices into larger circuits, or simply to connect them with the macroscopic world, scientists use a range of directed self-assembly techniques to deposit them at specific locations on microfabricated chips. Many such methods work well with spherical devices for which orientation is irrelevant. For linear wire-like devices, flow or field alignment works for applications involving a single global orientation. However, a general solution for multiple orientations or less symmetric devices (e.g., diodes or transistors) has remained elusive. Rationale: Single-molecule DNA origami shapes can simultaneously act as templates to create nanodevices and as adaptors to integrate them onto chips. With 200 attachment sites just 5 nm apart, origami can organize any material that can be linked to DNA; for example, carbon nanotube crosses have been templated to yield field-effect transistors. With ~100-nm outlines, origami are large enough that shape-matched binding sites can be written at arbitrary positions on chips using electron-beam lithography. Our prior work used equilateral triangles that stuck to binding sites in six degenerate orientations. Here, we asked whether origami shapes could provide both absolute orientation (to uniquely orient asymmetric devices) and arbitrary orientation (to independently orient each device). Success depended on finding a suitably asymmetric shape. Results: To break up-down symmetry and to ensure that each shape was deposited right-side up, we added adhesion-decreasing single-stranded DNAs to one side of each origami. The binding of asymmetric right triangles to shape-matched sites gave orientation distributions consistent with strong kinetic trapping, as predicted by the volumes of basins of attraction around local minima. This motivated the design of a “small moon” shape whose energy landscape has a single minimum. Fluorescent molecular dipoles fixed to small moons served as model nanodevices and allowed us to measure variability in orientation (±3.2°) by polarization microscopy. Large-scale integration was demonstrated by an array of 3456 small moons in 12 orientations, which we used as a fluorescence polarimeter to indicate excitation polarization. The utility of orientation for optimizing device performance was shown by aligning fluorescent dipoles within microfabricated optical cavities, which showed a factor of 4.5 increase in emission. Conclusion: Control over optical dipole orientation may enable metal nanorod metasurfaces at visible wavelengths, optimized coupling of emitters to nanoantennas, lumped nanocircuits, and coherence effects between small numbers of emitters. Still, these applications and the devices we present do not demonstrate the full power of the small moons: Dipolar devices can rotate 180° and still function. Completely asymmetric nanodevices requiring absolute orientation (e.g., molecular bipolar junction transistors) have yet to be developed; now that orientation can be controlled, there is motivation to invent them. In the meantime, the wiring of existing devices into circuits may be greatly simplified

Absolute and arbitrary orientation of single molecule shapes

DNA origami is a modular platform for the combination of molecular and colloidal components to create optical, electronic, and biological devices. Integration of such nanoscale devices with microfabricated connectors and circuits is challenging: large numbers of freely diffusing devices must be fixed at desired locations with desired alignment. We present a DNA origami molecule whose energy landscape on lithographic binding sites has a unique maximum. This property enables device alignment within 3.2∘ on SiO_2. Orientation is absolute (all degrees of freedom are specified) and arbitrary (every molecule's orientation is independently specified). The use of orientation to optimize device performance is shown by aligning fluorescent emission dipoles within microfabricated optical cavities. Large-scale integration is demonstrated via an array of 3,456 DNA origami with 12 distinct orientations, which indicates the polarization of excitation light

The multi-societal European consensus on the terminology, diagnosis and management of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases:an E-AHPBA consensus in partnership with ESSO, ESCP, ESGAR, and CIRSE

Background: Contemporary management of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases is complex. The aim of this project was to provide a practical framework for care of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases with a focus on terminology, diagnosis and management. Methods: This project was a multi-organisational, multidisciplinary consensus. The consensus group produced statements which focused on terminology, diagnosis and management. Statements were refined during an online Delphi process and those with 70% agreement or above were reviewed at a final meeting. Iterations of the report were shared by electronic mail to arrive at a final agreed document comprising twelve key statements. Results: Synchronous liver metastases are those detected at the time of presentation of the primary tumour. The term “early metachronous metastases” applies to those absent at presentation but detected within 12 months of diagnosis of the primary tumour with “late metachronous metastases” applied to those detected after 12 months. Disappearing metastases applies to lesions which are no longer detectable on MR scan after systemic chemotherapy. Guidance was provided on the recommended composition of tumour boards and clinical assessment in emergency and elective settings. The consensus focused on treatment pathways including systemic chemotherapy, synchronous surgery and the staged approach with either colorectal or liver-directed surgery as first step. Management of pulmonary metastases and the role of minimally invasive surgery was discussed. Conclusions: The recommendations of this contemporary consensus provide information of practical value to clinicians managing patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases.</p

The multi-societal European consensus on the terminology, diagnosis and management of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases:an E-AHPBA consensus in partnership with ESSO, ESCP, ESGAR, and CIRSE

Background: Contemporary management of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases is complex. The aim of this project was to provide a practical framework for care of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases with a focus on terminology, diagnosis and management. Methods: This project was a multi-organisational, multidisciplinary consensus. The consensus group produced statements which focused on terminology, diagnosis and management. Statements were refined during an online Delphi process and those with 70% agreement or above were reviewed at a final meeting. Iterations of the report were shared by electronic mail to arrive at a final agreed document comprising twelve key statements. Results: Synchronous liver metastases are those detected at the time of presentation of the primary tumour. The term “early metachronous metastases” applies to those absent at presentation but detected within 12 months of diagnosis of the primary tumour with “late metachronous metastases” applied to those detected after 12 months. Disappearing metastases applies to lesions which are no longer detectable on MR scan after systemic chemotherapy. Guidance was provided on the recommended composition of tumour boards and clinical assessment in emergency and elective settings. The consensus focused on treatment pathways including systemic chemotherapy, synchronous surgery and the staged approach with either colorectal or liver-directed surgery as first step. Management of pulmonary metastases and the role of minimally invasive surgery was discussed. Conclusions: The recommendations of this contemporary consensus provide information of practical value to clinicians managing patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases

bST & Milk: Benefit or Bane?

Bovine somatotropin (bST), a genetically engineered hormone for dairy cows that could increase milk yields by as much as 10 to 25 percent, is currently in the final phases of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval process. Anticipating its ultimate approval economists and industry analysts have concentrated their studies on the potential impact of bST on individual farmers, as well as on the dairy industry as a whole-the supply effects. In contrast, demand aspects have been largely ignored. But they shouldn't be because consumer backlash to bST in terms of lower demand could be substantial

Towards a viability modeling approach of farming systems of Small Islands Developing States

National audienceThe first motivation of this study is the question of viability of Small Islands Developing States (SIDS). Since Rio+20, SIDS have been recognized as vulnerable entities because of there islandness, smallness and there external dependence. Because of there vulnerability, there consice spatial and temporal scales and for the fragility of their agricultural systems, they are assimilated to laboratories for the analysis of global change. One of the key of there environmental and economical sustainability and resilience depends on how we can strengthen the health of the agroecosystems

Viability of small islands agro-systems: designing a farm modelling approach

National audienc

Humans versus AI: whether and why we prefer human-created compared to AI-created artwork.

With the recent proliferation of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models capable of mimicking human artworks, AI creations might soon replace products of human creativity, although skeptics argue that this outcome is unlikely. One possible reason this may be unlikely is that, independent of the physical properties of art, we place great value on the imbuement of the human experience in art. An interesting question, then, is whether and why people might prefer human-compared to AI-created artworks. To explore these questions, we manipulated the purported creator of pieces of art by randomly assigning a "Human-created" or "AI-created" label to paintings actually created by AI, and then assessed participants' judgements of the artworks across four rating criteria (Liking, Beauty, Profundity, and Worth). Study 1 found increased positive judgements for human- compared to AI-labelled art across all criteria. Study 2 aimed to replicate and extend Study 1 with additional ratings (Emotion, Story, Meaningful, Effort, and Time to create) intended to elucidate why people more-positively appraise Human-labelled artworks. The main findings from Study 1 were replicated, with narrativity (Story) and perceived effort behind artworks (Effort) moderating the label effects ("Human-created" vs. "AI-created"), but only for the sensory-level judgements (Liking, Beauty). Positive personal attitudes toward AI moderated label effects for more-communicative judgements (Profundity, Worth). These studies demonstrate that people tend to be negatively biased against AI-created artworks relative to purportedly human-created artwork, and suggest that knowledge of human engagement in the artistic process contributes positively to appraisals of art

Humans versus AI: whether and why we prefer human-created compared to AI-created artwork

Abstract With the recent proliferation of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models capable of mimicking human artworks, AI creations might soon replace products of human creativity, although skeptics argue that this outcome is unlikely. One possible reason this may be unlikely is that, independent of the physical properties of art, we place great value on the imbuement of the human experience in art. An interesting question, then, is whether and why people might prefer human-compared to AI-created artworks. To explore these questions, we manipulated the purported creator of pieces of art by randomly assigning a “Human-created” or “AI-created” label to paintings actually created by AI, and then assessed participants’ judgements of the artworks across four rating criteria (Liking, Beauty, Profundity, and Worth). Study 1 found increased positive judgements for human- compared to AI-labelled art across all criteria. Study 2 aimed to replicate and extend Study 1 with additional ratings (Emotion, Story, Meaningful, Effort, and Time to create) intended to elucidate why people more-positively appraise Human-labelled artworks. The main findings from Study 1 were replicated, with narrativity (Story) and perceived effort behind artworks (Effort) moderating the label effects (“Human-created” vs. “AI-created”), but only for the sensory-level judgements (Liking, Beauty). Positive personal attitudes toward AI moderated label effects for more-communicative judgements (Profundity, Worth). These studies demonstrate that people tend to be negatively biased against AI-created artworks relative to purportedly human-created artwork, and suggest that knowledge of human engagement in the artistic process contributes positively to appraisals of art