As expected, explanatory power of the model was low (conditional R-squared: 0.071, marginal R-squared: 0.013), but as in Study 1, we found that stimulus authorship (b = -0.435689, SE = 0.125832, z = -3.462, p = 0.000535) was once again significantly predictive of participants’ responses: being written by a human poet decreased the likelihood that a participant would respond that the poem was written by a human poet, with the odds of a human-authored poem being judged human-authored less than two-thirds that of an AI-generated poem (OR = 0.647). This finding replicates the main result of our first study.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: