How the mere perception of artificiality impacts sexual response
As AI becomes more and more like humans, entrepreneurs are already taking advantage of how simple it is to create a sexy chatbot body in order to cash grab from horny internet users. In a recent AI beauty pageant, users of the AI-dabbling web community came together to vote for their favorite digitally created model. The winner, who happened to be the creator of the attractive bot, took home more than $20,000.
In the meantime, researchers are becoming increasingly interested in how humans view artificially created people and whether this knowledge influences human behavior.
As reported here, a group of researchers from Finland and Italy wanted to see how we react to artificial intelligence images designed to induce sexual desire. They hypothesized that people would be less aroused if they thought the image was an avatar. Their findings were published in the journal Cognition and Emotion.
“In particular, we wanted to answer the question: are the images thought to be artificially generated capable of eliciting the same level of arousal as real ones, or do the latter still keep an edge in that regard?” asked study authors Alessandro Demichelis and Alessandro Ansani in a joint statement to PsyPost.
The researchers used images of attractive men and women, all real people, in lingerie or swimwear in two experiments. In one experiment, participants were asked to determine whether or not each photograph was artificial intelligence generated after rating their level of arousal. The identical pictures were used in a subsequent trial, but this time, they were clearly marked as real or fake.
For the heterosexual men and women who took part in the study, both trials supported the researchers’ hypothesis that sexual arousal is significantly influenced by perceptions of authenticity. But they also discovered that males warmed up to the fake images easier than women did.
“Our findings support the view that photos believed to be artificially generated are less arousing than those considered real, but we found that allegedly fake images are still capable of generating arousal, especially in men, just in an inferior amount,” Demichelis and Ansani explained.
According to the authors, the results provide valuable insight into how people interact with digital content.
“AI-generated images are here to stay, and as with every technological advancement, they offer both opportunities and danger,” they told PsyPost. “Within the domain of sexual arousal, our findings suggest that they are not going to replace the ‘real’ world since the mere belief that an image is AI-generated (even when it is not) is enough to reduce arousal. To put it differently, it seems that we (still?) have a strong preference for humanness over artificiality, even when such artificiality is just purported.”
Future research should examine a wider variety of sexual triggers, including even more explicit content, and whether people who are attracted to the same sex are as aware of authenticity. Additional complexity to the human arousal response may be added by physiological data like skin sensitivity and heart rate.
Demichelis and Ansani also intend to compare authentic and truly fake photographs in a similar study. “We hypothesize that the effect found in our study would even increase, solidifying the strength of our claims,” they said.
The findings underscore a fundamental human preference for authenticity, suggesting that despite the remarkable capabilities of AI, there remains an intangible quality to human-generated content that cannot be easily replicated. The subtle yet significant reduction in arousal when participants believed an image was artificially created points to a deeper psychological mechanism—a kind of authenticity filter that operates beneath conscious perception.
Moreover, the gender-based differences observed in the study hint at the intricate ways technological perception might interact with sexual response. The more receptive reaction of male participants to AI-generated images suggests potential variations in how different genders process and respond to artificial representations.
As we move forward, this research serves as a critical reminder that technological innovation does not automatically supplant human experience. While AI continues to push the boundaries of creation and representation, there remains a deeply ingrained human desire for genuine, unmanufactured connection. The challenge for future technological development may not be about creating perfect simulations but about understanding and respecting the nuanced, authentic experiences that define human interaction.