The numbers don’t lie, but they don’t tell the whole story either. An Artlist survey found that 87% of creators now use AI tools in some form. A Sonarworks study of 1,194 music creators, run with Sound On Sound, found that one in five is a regular AI user, and that use is selective and task-specific: in the survey’s tool chart, audio restoration leads (58%), ahead of mixing assistants (38%), mastering (33.9%) and composition tools (20.9%). A roundup of fiction-writing tools cites a 2025 Authors Guild survey in which 45% of published fiction writers use AI tools in some part of their process, and a 2024 Authors Guild survey in which 82% of respondents worried about AI homogenizing literary style.
But ask those same creators how they feel about it, and you’ll get a more complicated picture.
The Quiet Majority
Here’s the thing nobody talks about: most creators using AI don’t want to admit it publicly.
Only 20% of respondents in the Sonarworks survey describe their feelings about AI as positive, with the other 80% split between neutral and negative, according to Hypebot’s summary. Loss of originality or creativity is the most-cited concern (77%), and only 8.8% expect full automation. Many use AI anyway.
“Everybody thinks that it gives them a professional edge… however, you are somehow a villain if you use it,” one respondent told MusicTech. This captures the tension running through creative industries right now: widespread private adoption paired with public skepticism.
The Anonymous Creative Futures 2026 survey from Metalabel and the Artist Corporations Foundation put it bluntly. One anonymous respondent described creators as being in “the storm before sunrise,” adding that “being a creative person will be the only way to live, but right now its value is hard to prove.” The report gathers 300+ responses on themes of AI, “dark forests,” challenging economics, and a return to community and IRL engagement.
What Creators Actually Use AI For
The Sonarworks survey drew a clear line that most creators seem to respect: AI for technical tasks feels acceptable. AI for creative decisions feels like cheating.
Tasks where AI gets a pass:
- Audio cleanup and noise reduction
- Stem separation
- Session organization
- Routine mix balancing
- Transcription
Tasks where it doesn’t:
- Songwriting
- Arrangement decisions
- Emotional judgment
- Creative direction
Writers show similar patterns. According to surveys of fiction authors, tools like Claude, ChatGPT, and Sudowrite get used for brainstorming, research, and editing assistance. But authors draw the line at letting AI generate the actual prose.
The Sonarworks report frames it the same way: AI is welcome for technical work (cleanup, stems, organization, mix balancing, transcription), but most draw the line at letting AI make creative decisions.
The Money Problem
While creators debate the ethics, UNESCO released a sobering forecast. Their Re|Shaping Policies for Creativity report, covering 120 countries, projects that by 2028:
- Music creators could lose 24% of their income
- Audiovisual workers could lose 21% of their income
The causes are straightforward: unlicensed use of copyrighted material to train AI systems, and AI’s capacity to automate work traditionally done by human creators.
Deezer reported that 85% of streams of fully AI-generated tracks on its platform are fraudulent - suggesting a flood of AI-generated content competing for the same shrinking royalty pools.
The Copyright Wars
The legal battles are heating up. In Andersen v. Stability AI, artists including Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz won a key ruling allowing their copyright claims to proceed. The trial, once set for September 2026, was reset to 20 September 2027 by a 15 June 2026 order, per the court docket, and could reshape how AI art gets regulated in the U.S.
In music, artist groups launched the “Say No to Suno” campaign. The Music Artists Coalition, European Composer and Songwriter Alliance, and Artist Rights Alliance signed an open letter calling Suno a “brazen smash and grab” that uses “unauthorized AI platform machinery trained on human artists’ work.”
“The hijacking of the world’s entire treasure-trove of music floods platforms with AI slop and dilutes the royalty pools of legitimate artists,” the letter stated.
Meanwhile, the major labels chose a different path. Warner settled with Suno. UMG settled with Udio. The strategy shifted from lawsuits to licensing deals.
The Consent-Based Alternative
Not every AI music platform operates the same way. Grimes’ Elf.Tech offers a model based on artist consent and revenue sharing.
Through Elf.Tech, creators can use Grimes’ AI voice clone to make music under a transparent, opt-in licensing framework. Grimes earns revenue when her AI voice model is used. The training data comes from her own recordings, licensed with her permission.
Other platforms have started following this approach. It’s slower and more limited than scraping the entire internet, but it doesn’t face the same legal exposure.
How Artists Are Responding
Beyond lawsuits and licensing deals, individual artists are developing their own resistance strategies.
The Creative Bloq digital art trends report documented several approaches:
“Imperfect absurdism” - Making visible human flaws a deliberate feature. “Handmade as anti-AI ‘proof of effort’ will continue to be explored,” one artist wrote.
Community building - The Anonymous Creative Futures survey identifies community and IRL engagement as a central response to AI pressure, with DIY spaces and artist collectives becoming focal points.
Selective adoption - Using AI for technical grunt work while keeping creative decisions firmly human.
What creators aren’t doing is ignoring AI entirely. Even those who oppose it acknowledge they need to understand it.
What This Means
The creative industries are splitting into camps that don’t map neatly onto “pro-AI” versus “anti-AI.”
There are creators using AI privately while opposing it publicly. There are creators who accept AI tools for editing but reject them for generation. There are artists suing AI companies while other artists license their voices to them.
The common thread isn’t a unified position on AI. It’s economic anxiety. The UNESCO projections of 20-24% income losses aren’t hypothetical - they’re based on trends already visible in the data.
For individual creators, the calculus is brutally practical: use the tools your competitors use, or risk getting priced out. That pressure exists regardless of anyone’s ethical position.
What You Can Do
If you’re a creator navigating this landscape:
Understand what you’re using. Know whether your AI tools were trained on licensed or scraped data. Platforms like Elf.Tech operate differently than platforms facing copyright lawsuits.
Draw your own lines. The Sonarworks data suggests most creators distinguish between AI for technical tasks versus creative decisions. Figure out where your lines are.
Watch the legal outcomes. The Andersen v. Stability AI trial, now rescheduled to 2027, could change the legal landscape for AI art. Similar cases in music may follow.
Connect with other creators. The Anonymous Creative Futures survey found that community is the main source of optimism for artists right now. Isolation makes the economic pressure harder to bear.
The 87% adoption figure suggests AI creative tools aren’t going away. The question isn’t whether to engage with them, but how - and whether the legal and economic frameworks will protect creators or leave them behind.