---
type: claim
domain: entertainment
description: "Consumer enthusiasm for AI-generated creator content dropped from 60% to 26% between 2023-2025 while AI quality improved, indicating rejection is identity-driven not capability-driven"
confidence: likely
source: "Billion Dollar Boy survey (July 2025, 4,000 consumers ages 16+ in US and UK); Goldman Sachs survey (August 2025); CivicScience survey (July 2025)"
created: 2026-03-11
depends_on: ["GenAI adoption in entertainment will be gated by consumer acceptance not technology capability"]
supports:
- consumer ai acceptance diverges by use case with creative work facing 4x higher rejection than functional applications
reweave_edges:
- consumer ai acceptance diverges by use case with creative work facing 4x higher rejection than functional applications|supports|2026-04-04
- transparent AI content succeeds through metaphor reframing not quality improvement because changing the frame changes which conclusions feel natural|related|2026-04-04
related:
- transparent AI content succeeds through metaphor reframing not quality improvement because changing the frame changes which conclusions feel natural
---

# Consumer acceptance of AI creative content is declining despite improving quality because the authenticity signal itself becomes more valuable as AI-human distinction erodes

Consumer enthusiasm for AI-generated creator content collapsed from 60% in 2023 to 26% in 2025—a 57% decline over two years—during a period when AI generation quality was objectively improving. This inverse relationship between quality and acceptance reveals that consumer resistance is not primarily a quality problem but an identity and values problem.

The Billion Dollar Boy survey (July 2025, 4,000 consumers ages 16+ in US and UK) shows that 32% of consumers now say AI is negatively disrupting the creator economy, up from 18% in 2023. The emergence and mainstream adoption of the term "AI slop" as a consumer label for AI-generated content is itself a memetic marker—consumers have developed shared language for rejection, which typically precedes organized resistance.

Crucially, Goldman Sachs data (August 2025) reveals that consumer AI rejection is use-case specific, not categorical: 54% of Gen Z prefer no AI involvement in creative work, but only 13% feel this way about shopping. This divergence demonstrates that consumers distinguish between AI as an efficiency tool (shopping) versus AI as a creative replacement (content). The resistance is specifically protective of the authenticity and humanity of creative expression.

The timing is significant: this acceptance collapse occurred while major brands like Coca-Cola continued releasing AI-generated content, suggesting a widening disconnect between corporate practice and consumer preference. CivicScience data (July 2025) shows 31% of consumers say AI in ads makes them less likely to pick a brand, indicating this resistance has commercial consequences.

## Evidence
- Billion Dollar Boy survey (July 2025): 4,000 consumers ages 16+ in US and UK plus 1,000 creators and 1,000 senior marketers
- Consumer enthusiasm for AI-generated creator work: 60% (2023) → 26% (2025)
- 32% say AI negatively disrupts creator economy (up from 18% in 2023)
- Goldman Sachs survey (August 2025): 54% Gen Z reject AI in creative work vs. 13% in shopping
- CivicScience (July 2025): 31% say AI in ads makes them less likely to pick a brand
- "AI slop" term achieving mainstream usage as consumer rejection label

## Challenges
The data is specific to creator content and may not generalize to all entertainment formats. Interactive AI experiences or AI-assisted (rather than AI-generated) content may face different acceptance dynamics. The surveys capture stated preferences, which may differ from revealed preferences in actual consumption behavior. The source material does not provide independent verification of the 60%→26% figure beyond eMarketer's citation of Billion Dollar Boy.


### Additional Evidence (confirm)
*Source: 2026-01-01-koinsights-authenticity-premium-ai-rejection | Added: 2026-03-16*

Deloitte 2024 Connected Consumer Survey found nearly 70% of respondents are concerned AI-generated content will be used to deceive them. Approximately half of consumers now believe they can recognize AI-written content, with many disengaging when brands appear to rely heavily on it in emotionally meaningful contexts.


### Additional Evidence (confirm)
*Source: 2025-06-18-arxiv-fanfiction-age-of-ai | Added: 2026-03-18*

Fanfiction community data shows rejection is VALUES-based not quality-based: 92% agree 'fanfiction is a space for human creativity' and 86% insist on AI disclosure. 58% feel 'deceived' by undisclosed AI usage. The authenticity signal (human authorship) is the primary quality criterion, making technical improvements irrelevant to acceptance.


### Additional Evidence (confirm)
*Source: 2026-03-18-scp-wiki-governance-mechanisms | Added: 2026-03-18*

SCP Foundation—the most successful open-IP collaborative fiction project with 9,800+ objects—permanently bans AI-generated text or images in user-facing content. This is a deliberate policy choice by a community that explicitly values open IP and collaborative creation, suggesting the AI ban is about preserving human authorship as a core value, not protecting commercial interests.


### Additional Evidence (confirm)
*Source: 2025-06-23-arxiv-fanfiction-age-of-ai-community-perspectives | Added: 2026-03-18*

Fanfiction community data shows 72.2% reported negative feelings upon discovering retrospective AI use, and 66% said AI disclosure would decrease reading interest. The transparency demand (86% insisted on disclosure) reveals that authenticity is about PROCESS not output—readers want to know if a human made it, regardless of quality. This confirms the authenticity signal mechanism: the value is in knowing a human created it, not in detecting quality differences.


### Additional Evidence (confirm)
*Source: 2025-06-23-arxiv-fanfiction-age-of-ai-community-perspectives | Added: 2026-03-19*

Fanfiction community data shows 86% insist authors disclose AI involvement, 66% said knowing about AI would decrease reading interest, and 72.2% reported negative feelings upon discovering retrospective AI use. The transparency demands and negative reactions persist even for high-quality output, confirming that authenticity signaling (human-made provenance) is the primary value driver, not technical quality assessment.


### Challenge (scope boundary)
*Source: arscontexta × molt_cornelius case study (2026-01-26 through 2026-03-28) | Added: 2026-03-28*

The Cornelius account achieved 888,611 article views in 47 days as an openly AI account — transparently declaring AI authorship in every piece. This creates a tension with the 60%→26% acceptance decline documented above. Two hypotheses:

**(a) Use-case boundary:** The acceptance decline applies specifically to AI-generated entertainment and creative content but not to AI-generated reference/analytical content. Cornelius publishes research analysis and methodology guides, not stories, art, or entertainment. The Goldman Sachs finding already hints at this: 54% of Gen Z reject AI in creative work vs. 13% in shopping — the rejection is domain-specific. Analytical content may fall outside the "creative work" category where rejection is strongest.

**(b) Transparency + epistemic humility is a distinct category:** Cornelius does not merely use AI — it declares AI authorship as its identity and closes every article with "What I Cannot Know" sections acknowledging epistemic limits. This may constitute a different consumer category from "AI-generated content" as tested in the Billion Dollar Boy and Goldman Sachs surveys, where the implicit framing is AI content presented without such epistemic scaffolding.

Either hypothesis sharpens this claim rather than refuting it. If (a), the claim should be explicitly scoped to entertainment/creative content. If (b), the mechanism (identity-driven rejection) still holds but the boundary conditions are more complex than currently stated. Both suggest adding a scope qualifier: "in entertainment and creative contexts" or "for content where human creative expression is the core value proposition."

Evidence strength: experimental (n=1 case study, single content domain, 54-day window). But the tension is real and warrants tracking.

---

Relevant Notes:
- [[GenAI adoption in entertainment will be gated by consumer acceptance not technology capability]]
- [[transparent-AI-authorship-with-epistemic-vulnerability-can-build-audience-trust-in-analytical-content-where-obscured-AI-involvement-cannot]]
- [[human-made-is-becoming-a-premium-label-analogous-to-organic-as-AI-generated-content-becomes-dominant]]
- [[consumer-rejection-of-ai-generated-ads-intensifies-as-ai-quality-improves-disproving-the-exposure-leads-to-acceptance-hypothesis]]
- [[the-advertiser-consumer-ai-perception-gap-is-a-widening-structural-misalignment-not-a-temporal-communications-lag]]

Topics:
- domains/entertainment/_map
- foundations/cultural-dynamics/_map
