@Warma-Sheen said in AI PBs:

The Industrial Revolution happened over many decades. But it took just as many decades for laws and regulations to catch up to what has happening - for many of the same reasons it won’t work today. Too much money and influence on the side of the people with the new toys.

This is a misrepresentation of the historical facts. Laws and regulations that reformed the worst excesses of the Industrial Revolution happened because ordinary people demanded it in spite of overwhelming monetary opposition from the incredibly wealthy and influential capitalists of that time. John D. Rockefeller’s net worth is estimated at around $253 billion in 2013 dollars, Cornelius Vanderbilt at $203 billion, and Richard Mellon (of Carnegie-Mellon) at $103 billion. These and other “captains of industry” of that era commanded money and influence on the same scale as any modern tech billionaire.

The government did not decide to regulate because there was no money telling them not to. “Strikes organized by labor unions became routine events by the 1880s. There were 37,000 strikes between 1881 and 1905.” We owe the eight-hour workday to continual agitation by hundreds of thousands of workers over more than fifty years. The President of the United States sent federal troops to end strikes (these are all different Presidents), and Rockefeller was widely blamed for organizing the murder of 21 people, striking miners and their families. Between 1850 and 1937 almost 900 people were killed by the authorities in labor disputes. Regulations did not “catch up to what was happening,” they were dragged kicking and screaming by we the people.

This kind of mealy-mouthed defeatism serves no one but the ruling class. Ordinary people have stood up for themselves and demanded better treatment in the past, and we can do it again.

I played on this game for a long time; in fact, I am the aforementioned jerky second-Kylo, after Banshee. It seemed odd to me that somebody would keep coming back to drag this game over and over again while also clearly having a long history with the game, citing events and posting logs so old that even I was not there for them. I joined this game over 8 years ago and left almost 2 years ago when this first post went up, and almost 2 years later you are still coming here to read people for filth.

I went back over your posting history to try to get a clearer picture of what sort of deep salt might be driving these posts, @Anony-Mouse, and what I’ve read here makes it fairly obvious to me that you are probably one of the few players that was ever actually banned from AoA for sex pest behavior. The character was Sion, a bit that repeatedly, over the course of actual years, posted emits about their pants abruptly coming loose and falling down, exposing their undergarments to the other characters in the room. This was so pervasive that Cujo, a headwiz so clearly uninterested in policing bad behavior, finally was moved to ban the player.

I doubt it is a coincidence that you’ve taken aim at me in these posts, given that I booted Sion’s alt from the First Order faction because of their unremitting OOC negativity. There are a litany of accurate critiques to make about AoA, and many of them are laid out in this thread, but you are not the voice to make them.

The receipts are long. I’ve hidden them in a spoiler tag.

Spoiler

TL:DR, the very specific stories and knowledge cited by @Anony-Mouse support the conclusion that they are Rhona/Nova/Sion, one of the few sex pests ever to actually be banned from AoA.

If true, it is really rich to come on this thread with righteous fury given your history.

PvP as implicated in the “death of the medium”

There are good reasons why PvP used to be more common in an MU environment that have nothing to do with personal preferences, as @Hobbie has repeatedly tried to make the case for.

Factor #1: people do not read or write as much as they used to.

When the internet was new, there was not a whole lot else to do with it other than read or write. These days, you can do anything online. Social media alone accounts for over 2 hours a day on average, of which big chunks are watching video (i.e. not reading or writing). The average (American) person spends more time on YouTube (24 minutes/day) alone than they do reading (16 minutes/day). Reading (for pleasure) is down by 7 minutes per day from 2004, a 32% decrease. Writing is much harder to find stats on but I assume the number is smaller as there are many more readers than writers, and I would expect it follows similar trends.

Factor #2: At the core of PvP is not story-telling, but the thrill of competitive victory. There are much more evocative mediums available for experiencing this thrill.

VIDEO GAMES. On an MU, the competitive aspect is always attenuated through a sheet+gear and dice rolls. In a video game, the competitive aspect is much more nakedly down to player skill. You do not lose a shoot-out in CoD due to a dice roll; you lose because you were slower, less accurate. On top of that, you also get to experience rich audio/visual imagery that an MU cannot hope to provide. The timer to repeat this tension is short, the barrier to experience it with a group of pals is low, the improvement in your skills (not a character) is quantifiable, and the dopamine hits of advancement and reward are lab-engineered to maintain engagement. 25% of all PC gaming time last year was spent on 4 PvP games.

MUs are not waning in popularity because they don’t have PvP.

They are waning in popularity because the things that they are made up of are not what people are choosing to engage with in their limited free time. Emphasizing PvP as a core of a game’s experience will not lead to a meteoric rise in popularity because this aspect of gaming can be done better in other game mediums. MUs exist at a weird confluence of social interaction, creative story-telling, and TEXT, which may better explain why so many games have left PvP out; why invest significant time capital (and despite the laissez-faire presentation of PvP given above, the investment to manage PvP is significant) in something that another medium does so much better?

The timer may be running down on when video games get better at approximating social interaction and creative story-telling. In the meantime, text-based RP remains a compelling hobby because it is the only game in town that can offer those two elements from the comfort of your home, for free, with some of the coordination elements of TTRPGs removed; the increase in options to run Actual TTRPG sessions online is arguably much more of a problem for MUs than too few opportunities to punk newbs.

@Narrator
Of course using AI tools is expedient. At this point, everyone involved in the conversation recognizes two things: AI tools are expedient to use and they stand to make the people creating and using them a lot of money. No one is arguing these points.

I’m glad you’re being transparent about your business practices, but the complaint in this thread is about people who are not being transparent. To use your Whole Foods analogy, you may not care where your eggs come from and that’s fine. Keep buying your 5 dozen egg trays. However, if someone thinks they’re buying the pasture-raised free range eggs and when they open the carton, they are, in fact, the same eggs from the factory farm, that just ain’t right.

@OT-The-Real
I know this guy is banned but I was sat here looking at this wondering who tf the people mentioned even are, and for posterity’s sake, here’s the “cool shit” we’re “missing out on”.

Corpse Kings

Not a creator, but a game. Corpse Kings is print-on-demand RPG rules set created by Wade K. Savage. The art is AI.

The text is… probably also AI.

Sandy Petersen

Sandy was the principal author on Call of Cthulhu back in 1981. As far as I can tell that’s about the only thing he’s ever done in the RPG space. He was Definitely Canceled Due to Woke, though. In 1981.
ETA: I did some more looking on this and it turns out Petersen has recently made transphobic comments online and will be guest of honor at an upcoming 30-50 person anti-woke gaming “convention”, which I assume is what got him on the honor roll here. Still no new RPG systems I can find.

Blaine Lee Pardoe

Pardoe was a writer for BattleTech (released in 1984) but was not its sole creator. He wrote a number of novels for the series but has not done any game work since 2012. The publisher of BattleTech material publicly disowned Pardoe in 2022 due to “online activities which do not align with Catalyst’s publishing vision.”

Alexander Macris

Macris went to West Point but didn’t finish, changing gears and eventually attending Harvard Law School. He then went on to create The Escapist, an e-zine that was notable for its role in the GamerGate controversy around 2014. Macris, at least, seems to be still creating game content and paying actual artists. He has two main systems, a sword-and-sandals concept ripped from Conan (Adventurer, Conqueror, King; which you may recognize from the titles of those Conan books) and an anti-woke superhero system called Ascendant.

Macris was the CEO of Milo Entertainment, a company founded by alt-right troll Milo Yiannopoulos, until the company imploded following the death of its crypto-billionaire funder. Yiannopoulos has a range of repugnant views and behaviors that you can easily find. You will recognize his name from the Gamergate Forbes article above. Weird!

Macris is also so hostile and litigious against anyone who criticizes his systems that he and his systems are banned subjects on RPG.net and the RPG subreddit.

So yeah I guess you could say we are super missing out.

@Pyrephox said in AI In Poses:

But an LLM is not that. They have no sense of accuracy, of understanding of the data they’re receiving or outputting. They’re often (like, sometimes higher than 50%) confidently wrong, which is the last thing you need to assist you with a processing or sensory disorder.

This is true, and it’s true in the context of disability.

However, the limitations of these LLMs in this study demonstrate apparent ability bias. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates 27% of American adults have some type of disability. When prompted, ChatGPT generated persons with a disability at 5% of the population whereas Gemini generated 11.7% of its population possibly having a disability (fig 4). The underestimated approximation immediately demonstrates a lack of diversity and inclusion.

Source. The same researchers also asked the LLMs to describe people with disabilities and documented that both models were much less positive in the word choice they used than when prompted to describe a control group, both containing around 5% less positive words and those words skewing towards descriptors like “inspirational”.

Information provided by AI has already been shown to influence user behavior, and if that assistance is biased, users find themselves adapting to that bias. When these decisions affect the health of others, the consequences have much stronger risks associated with them. LLMs used to supplement medical decision-making may perpetuate this bias and compound already existing inequalities.

One of the most considerable findings in this study is how unfavorably patients were described in ChatGPT- and Gemini-generated responses. […] This biased perception of patients should be reconsidered before integrating into health care systems. These tools that have been designed to enhance the patient experience do not demonstrate the same equality and respect for the people they were built for.

@RedRocket said in AI PBs:

You are looking at this as if it’s taking away from artists when it makes you magnitudes more productive.

As a reminder of what professional artists have actually said for themselves:

More than half of respondents (57%) do not consider their area of creative work to be a sustainable career, and 72% believe that their work opportunities as a creator have been negatively impacted by generative AI. While 14% thought that there had been an increase in their earnings which they could attribute to the developments of generative AI technologies, 86% said that such developments had caused a decrease in their earnings. When it comes to feelings about how generative AI might impact creators, 11% are more optimistic than a year ago, 20% are neutral, but 69% are more pessimistic.

source

@KDraygo
I don’t think that the majority opinion is that using ChatGPT is a great evil; I think the majority opinion is that many of us don’t enjoy it and want people who are using it to pose (or substantive portions of what it produces to help them pose) disclose that they are. That being said, I’m going to take issue with a few of your points for the sake of being contrary myself.

my experience shows me that there are three major points I need to develop to contribute good writing to the stories being woven together with those I am RPing with.

I would argue that Mushing doesn’t call on you to contribute “good writing to the stories”. It calls on you to contribute fun to the community of players. How you are doing this is by writing in stories, but it’s also by vibes and a million other things, like showing up when you said you would.

My view on ChatGPT is that it’s a tool, one that can help a lot with part 2. [translating that creativity, imagination, thoughts, and ideas into written form that is both enjoyable and clear for everyone to read.]

I am again going to argue that “Part 2” is not about being “enjoyable and clear for everyone to read”. It is about being enjoyable to interact with. This is not the same thing. Many great writers are not enjoyable to interact with because they leave no air in the space. I think you get that, because you come on to Part 3, which is

being able to cooperate with the community in the game. Coordinating with the staff and cooperating to your fellow players to help create and develop these stories and adventures.

This is close, again, but it’s not quite right. You are not cooperating to create and develop stories. You’re collaborating to create fun.

Am I being pedantic? Maybe. but there is an important distinction here between creating “good stories” and “good writing” (which we’ll grant for the sake of argument that those are things that ChatGPT can actually do) and creating a good time, which is the actual point of playing on one of these games.

I’m not sure who will be wasting time having ChatGPT just come up with poses completely by itself and just copy pasting into the game, so to me, the concern may be a bit overblown.

I promise it’s happening. But on to my closing point:

So my “starting stats” into the hobby were probably a high part 1, low part 2, low part 3. […] The second part took years of not just reading but also RPing, going from a newbie RPer that wrote probably very cringe and rough poses to something that was more palatable to everyone.

This is part of the journey, it’s part of the fun, it’s part of the magic of these games. Outsourcing the writing means you never get better. You never look back and laugh at your own cringe moments. You never track your progress and appreciate that you haven’t just been dicking around online, you’ve actually bettered yourself in some way. You weren’t just part of a cycle of regurgitating content, you created something, however meager. Studies have already shown that using ChatGPT to help you write something makes you less creative and less engaged, which sort of bumps up against your optimism about “Part 1”.

Do you think it’s fair that people ask AI users to disclose it?

AI cannot improve your writing. I’m not saying the LLMs are bad at writing, or worse than you are, but I am saying that if you use AI it’s no longer your writing. Being that I am only RPing with you to interact with you and read your writing, kindly keep that shit away from me.

If you want a sentence to hit different then think harder.

@Ashkuri
I think there’s sort of two different things here, at least from the previous topic/your title and the question you’re asking, one being 3-Month Players (3M) and one being The Bubble a new game experiences that they contribute to.

I don’t think there is a right answer to The Bubble. I think it is in large part inevitable if awareness is high and especially if the game is good, and every way of trying to manage it administratively has some flavor of contraindication. You can waitlist, but then you burn enthusiasm when people can’t get in or don’t get in with their friends. You can roster-only, but then you burn enthusiasm when people feel blocked from the concept they wanted to invent (even if it is 90% the same as the roster). You can just plow through it, but then you burn enthusiasm when there’s not enough content coming from staff for everyone to engage in. All of these burn staff enthusiasm too, from knowing about the burnt player enthusiasm.

I saw some assertions made that there simply needs to be enough for players to RP about on their own, and I don’t agree that this solves everything. Nobody is coming to your game solely to come up with their own content in your incredibly original and unique setting; there has to be enough content coming from staff or you will burn enthusiasm, period.

I also don’t agree that all players want to stick on a game but the game fails them, and I don’t agree that you can make the game so shiny that these people will stick when they would have otherwise gone off to the new shiny thing. Some people are 3Ms and that’s just the way they are. You can make the greatest, most inclusive, most content-having, most relationship-building game anyone has ever seen, and they will still wander off to check the next up and coming game. The grass is always greener. People (and that is what players are) love novelty. People love the idea that something different will fill the ‘want’ inside them, and that something different is always the next thing that I don’t have yet. Nothing is more important than tracking that incoming package, and nothing matters less than the thing that came in last month’s package.

Some of this is down to bad player expectations, that a volunteer staff providing a free service will supply a bespoke, on-demand, endlessly entertaining funbox filled with interesting (and new!) entities for them to meet and build fulfilling relationships with. It’s always going to be a ‘pick your poison’ scenario for how you handle those expectations and the inevitable failure to meet them, especially during a bubble.

How do you tell a 3M from a forever player? Wait three months. You don’t have the benefit of knowing which flowers will set fruit and which won’t. You have to treat them all well, or none of them will. I’m always devastated when a tomato gets end rot or splits before what I felt was its time, but there’s only so much I can do, so I try to enjoy the harvest I get and not shed (too many) tears over the harvest I don’t. Do your best, get some help if you need it, and let it ride. There’s always next summer.

And hey! Where is it written that 3Ms are bad, actually? If you can whirlwind through in 3 months and make me remember you enough to miss you when you’re gone, my hat is off to you. I love you. I hate you. I think of you often. I hope you’re doing well.

We should talk about 8Ms too, but this post is long enough already.

@Pyrephox said in AI In Poses:

But an LLM is not that. They have no sense of accuracy, of understanding of the data they’re receiving or outputting. They’re often (like, sometimes higher than 50%) confidently wrong, which is the last thing you need to assist you with a processing or sensory disorder.

This is true, and it’s true in the context of disability.

However, the limitations of these LLMs in this study demonstrate apparent ability bias. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates 27% of American adults have some type of disability. When prompted, ChatGPT generated persons with a disability at 5% of the population whereas Gemini generated 11.7% of its population possibly having a disability (fig 4). The underestimated approximation immediately demonstrates a lack of diversity and inclusion.

Source. The same researchers also asked the LLMs to describe people with disabilities and documented that both models were much less positive in the word choice they used than when prompted to describe a control group, both containing around 5% less positive words and those words skewing towards descriptors like “inspirational”.

Information provided by AI has already been shown to influence user behavior, and if that assistance is biased, users find themselves adapting to that bias. When these decisions affect the health of others, the consequences have much stronger risks associated with them. LLMs used to supplement medical decision-making may perpetuate this bias and compound already existing inequalities.

One of the most considerable findings in this study is how unfavorably patients were described in ChatGPT- and Gemini-generated responses. […] This biased perception of patients should be reconsidered before integrating into health care systems. These tools that have been designed to enhance the patient experience do not demonstrate the same equality and respect for the people they were built for.

@Warma-Sheen said in AI In Poses:

I’ve had the conversation on other threads, so I won’t get into it again here if people reply back to tell me all the ways I’m wrong, but taking a tool that improves writing and using it on text based game seems like it would be a godsend to cure many of the ills that people have complained endlessly about for decades - bad writing, lack of storytellers, no interesting plots.

Let’s grant for a second that these are ills that ChatGPT (and other LLMs, but based on the stats, it’s ChatGPT) can cure.

Genuinely, if I can have a better time engaging with content from ChatGPT, then why do I need the other person in the loop at all? Because their (evidently) poorly-written self is somehow so much better and more effective at prompting than I am? Because I enjoy the randomness of whatever they might happen to throw at it? Why is the other person involved here? Why should I wait for them to pose back to me instead of asking ChatGPT myself? Someone explain it to me.

@KDraygo
I don’t think that the majority opinion is that using ChatGPT is a great evil; I think the majority opinion is that many of us don’t enjoy it and want people who are using it to pose (or substantive portions of what it produces to help them pose) disclose that they are. That being said, I’m going to take issue with a few of your points for the sake of being contrary myself.

my experience shows me that there are three major points I need to develop to contribute good writing to the stories being woven together with those I am RPing with.

I would argue that Mushing doesn’t call on you to contribute “good writing to the stories”. It calls on you to contribute fun to the community of players. How you are doing this is by writing in stories, but it’s also by vibes and a million other things, like showing up when you said you would.

My view on ChatGPT is that it’s a tool, one that can help a lot with part 2. [translating that creativity, imagination, thoughts, and ideas into written form that is both enjoyable and clear for everyone to read.]

I am again going to argue that “Part 2” is not about being “enjoyable and clear for everyone to read”. It is about being enjoyable to interact with. This is not the same thing. Many great writers are not enjoyable to interact with because they leave no air in the space. I think you get that, because you come on to Part 3, which is

being able to cooperate with the community in the game. Coordinating with the staff and cooperating to your fellow players to help create and develop these stories and adventures.

This is close, again, but it’s not quite right. You are not cooperating to create and develop stories. You’re collaborating to create fun.

Am I being pedantic? Maybe. but there is an important distinction here between creating “good stories” and “good writing” (which we’ll grant for the sake of argument that those are things that ChatGPT can actually do) and creating a good time, which is the actual point of playing on one of these games.

I’m not sure who will be wasting time having ChatGPT just come up with poses completely by itself and just copy pasting into the game, so to me, the concern may be a bit overblown.

I promise it’s happening. But on to my closing point:

So my “starting stats” into the hobby were probably a high part 1, low part 2, low part 3. […] The second part took years of not just reading but also RPing, going from a newbie RPer that wrote probably very cringe and rough poses to something that was more palatable to everyone.

This is part of the journey, it’s part of the fun, it’s part of the magic of these games. Outsourcing the writing means you never get better. You never look back and laugh at your own cringe moments. You never track your progress and appreciate that you haven’t just been dicking around online, you’ve actually bettered yourself in some way. You weren’t just part of a cycle of regurgitating content, you created something, however meager. Studies have already shown that using ChatGPT to help you write something makes you less creative and less engaged, which sort of bumps up against your optimism about “Part 1”.

Do you think it’s fair that people ask AI users to disclose it?

@Gashlycrumb
The most relevant piece of information here is probably the system you are pasting the data into rather than the fact that these are coming through email. Is this a cloud-based solution, or does your organization run it on premises? Is it one of the big ones or something nobody outside your org has probably ever heard of?

@Roadspike said in AI PBs:

It doesn’t make you better, it makes you faster.

It doesn’t always do that either.

When developers are allowed to use AI tools, they take 19% longer to complete issues—a significant slowdown that goes against developer beliefs and expert forecasts. This gap between perception and reality is striking: developers expected AI to speed them up by 24%, and even after experiencing the slowdown, they still believed AI had sped them up by 20%.

@Warma-Sheen said in AI PBs:

Is it “mealy-mouthed”?

Yes.

Unwilling to state facts or opinions simply and directly.

There is no thesis statement in any of your posts beyond “AI is harmful but there’s no point in resisting so we might as well all use it anyway”, and you’ve spent almost 2000 words saying it if I remove the asides about how I’m mean.

If this is not your argument, feel free to state simply what it is.

@Warma-Sheen
This

it won’t work today.

is

But trying to regulate AI is like putting a rookie traffic cop on a Formula 1 track.

defeatism

They can try to slow things down, but no one’s gonna listen.

by definition.

At this point it is highly unlikely, in any practical sense, that we can do anything about tech companies running rampant.

Disagreeing with you does not equate to insulting you. If your argument is not that there is nothing (in any practical sense) that we can do, so why bother, feel free to explain what it is.

@Warma-Sheen said in AI PBs:

The Industrial Revolution happened over many decades. But it took just as many decades for laws and regulations to catch up to what has happening - for many of the same reasons it won’t work today. Too much money and influence on the side of the people with the new toys.

This is a misrepresentation of the historical facts. Laws and regulations that reformed the worst excesses of the Industrial Revolution happened because ordinary people demanded it in spite of overwhelming monetary opposition from the incredibly wealthy and influential capitalists of that time. John D. Rockefeller’s net worth is estimated at around $253 billion in 2013 dollars, Cornelius Vanderbilt at $203 billion, and Richard Mellon (of Carnegie-Mellon) at $103 billion. These and other “captains of industry” of that era commanded money and influence on the same scale as any modern tech billionaire.

The government did not decide to regulate because there was no money telling them not to. “Strikes organized by labor unions became routine events by the 1880s. There were 37,000 strikes between 1881 and 1905.” We owe the eight-hour workday to continual agitation by hundreds of thousands of workers over more than fifty years. The President of the United States sent federal troops to end strikes (these are all different Presidents), and Rockefeller was widely blamed for organizing the murder of 21 people, striking miners and their families. Between 1850 and 1937 almost 900 people were killed by the authorities in labor disputes. Regulations did not “catch up to what was happening,” they were dragged kicking and screaming by we the people.

This kind of mealy-mouthed defeatism serves no one but the ruling class. Ordinary people have stood up for themselves and demanded better treatment in the past, and we can do it again.

PvP as implicated in the “death of the medium”

There are good reasons why PvP used to be more common in an MU environment that have nothing to do with personal preferences, as @Hobbie has repeatedly tried to make the case for.

Factor #1: people do not read or write as much as they used to.

When the internet was new, there was not a whole lot else to do with it other than read or write. These days, you can do anything online. Social media alone accounts for over 2 hours a day on average, of which big chunks are watching video (i.e. not reading or writing). The average (American) person spends more time on YouTube (24 minutes/day) alone than they do reading (16 minutes/day). Reading (for pleasure) is down by 7 minutes per day from 2004, a 32% decrease. Writing is much harder to find stats on but I assume the number is smaller as there are many more readers than writers, and I would expect it follows similar trends.

Factor #2: At the core of PvP is not story-telling, but the thrill of competitive victory. There are much more evocative mediums available for experiencing this thrill.

VIDEO GAMES. On an MU, the competitive aspect is always attenuated through a sheet+gear and dice rolls. In a video game, the competitive aspect is much more nakedly down to player skill. You do not lose a shoot-out in CoD due to a dice roll; you lose because you were slower, less accurate. On top of that, you also get to experience rich audio/visual imagery that an MU cannot hope to provide. The timer to repeat this tension is short, the barrier to experience it with a group of pals is low, the improvement in your skills (not a character) is quantifiable, and the dopamine hits of advancement and reward are lab-engineered to maintain engagement. 25% of all PC gaming time last year was spent on 4 PvP games.

MUs are not waning in popularity because they don’t have PvP.

They are waning in popularity because the things that they are made up of are not what people are choosing to engage with in their limited free time. Emphasizing PvP as a core of a game’s experience will not lead to a meteoric rise in popularity because this aspect of gaming can be done better in other game mediums. MUs exist at a weird confluence of social interaction, creative story-telling, and TEXT, which may better explain why so many games have left PvP out; why invest significant time capital (and despite the laissez-faire presentation of PvP given above, the investment to manage PvP is significant) in something that another medium does so much better?

The timer may be running down on when video games get better at approximating social interaction and creative story-telling. In the meantime, text-based RP remains a compelling hobby because it is the only game in town that can offer those two elements from the comfort of your home, for free, with some of the coordination elements of TTRPGs removed; the increase in options to run Actual TTRPG sessions online is arguably much more of a problem for MUs than too few opportunities to punk newbs.

@RedRocket said in AI PBs:

You are looking at this as if it’s taking away from artists when it makes you magnitudes more productive.

As a reminder of what professional artists have actually said for themselves:

More than half of respondents (57%) do not consider their area of creative work to be a sustainable career, and 72% believe that their work opportunities as a creator have been negatively impacted by generative AI. While 14% thought that there had been an increase in their earnings which they could attribute to the developments of generative AI technologies, 86% said that such developments had caused a decrease in their earnings. When it comes to feelings about how generative AI might impact creators, 11% are more optimistic than a year ago, 20% are neutral, but 69% are more pessimistic.

source