All this study shows is that people rate an AI generate story worse when they know it's AI and say they'd pay less for it. Who knows what the relative rating or "payment" for a actual human written story would have been!
Then someone in the comments inevitably says it is fake and everyone says of course it is. It's a skit, but it is still funny.
Knowing it is written by a computer and not by a human lowers the value of it regardless of how difficult it is to distinguish in my opinion. Thoughts and expressions by fellow humans gives something value and being written by a computer takes away a lot if not all of the purpose behind art.
They have to construct the study independent of the actual quality of the writing. And it’s clear here that many people are just biased.
However the headline and article imply that people are wrong that the quality of the writing is bad. So a study "independent of the actual quality of the writing" goes directly against the conclusion they are pushing here. (the paper itself does not have this issue).