A study led by Cambridge University Press and Villanova University researchers found that ChatGPT-made stories received higher scores from readers, especially when participants believed the story was written by a human. The study involved 1,682 participants aged 18 to 81 years, who read fictional stories, assessed their quality, and tried to distinguish between human and AI works. Conducted in three experiments, the first told participants a story was either AI- or human-created before quality assessment. In the second and third experiments, groups of 424 and 481 people each read one human-written and one ChatGPT-generated story without knowing which was AI, then guessed the AI story. ChatGPT stories received the highest ratings, with even higher scores when participants were wrongly told a human wrote them. More than 60 percent of participants in the second experiment and more than 48 percent in the third failed to correctly identify AI-generated content. Senior author Deena Weisberg said results show a tendency to value writing believed to be human-made, noting people underestimate AI due to assumptions about creative writing requiring human qualities. Weisberg suspects AI writing is more acceptable because it tends to be direct, clear, and simple, while human writing is more subtle and complex. Similar findings emerged in a 2023 study led by Renee Richardson Gosline of MIT, where AI-generated content and AI making final decisions using human results were judged higher quality than human experts.