Understanding AI's Impact on the Creator Economy

Something concerning is happening in the creator economy. AI content is getting big. Really big. And it's making me wonder: what happens to creators when AI can make content we prefer watching? Just look at what's happening: The third most-watched video on YouTube a few weeks ago was an AI-generated pug saving a baby from a plane crash. 400 million views. 5 million likes. All completely fake. The channel behind it has gained 4 million subscribers since April 2023. Just by posting AI-generated pug content. This isn't just a random trend. Our feeds have evolved into algorithmic content machines that serve us exactly what we want to watch. These algorithms already know us better than we know ourselves. So how far are we from platforms producing AI content that we prefer watching over content made by actual humans? As someone deeply embedded in the creator economy, this stuff freaks me out. Not because AI is bad. But because we're standing at a human crossroads. The platforms that once empowered creators might soon replace them. The algorithms that once distributed human creativity might soon generate it. The audiences that once connected with real people might soon prefer synthetic ones. Do we want a world where the content we consume is optimized for engagement but devoid of human experience? Or do we want to preserve the messy, imperfect, beautiful reality of human creativity? I don't have the answers. But I know this conversation needs to happen now, not after AI has already taken over our feeds. What do you think? #creatoreconomy #AI #content

AI deepfakes are coming to the creator economy. While human creators can use this tech to their advantage, it will also introduce fierce competition. Creator platforms and startups are rapidly readying AI-powered services that will allow influencers to digitally clone themselves, including Google’s Veo 2 for YouTube, Meta’s AI Studio and Instagram, and TikTok’s Symphony Avatars (as well as OmniHuman from TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance), plus OpenAI’s Sora, Pika, Runway, Luma AI, HeyGen, Synthesia, and Pollo. Here’s how this could disrupt the creator economy: ⏫Upsides Reduced Creator Burnout – When your livelihood depends on your omnipresence online, it’s hard to get sick, take breaks or digital detoxes. Clones make that possible. Global Audience Expansion – English-speaking influencers can connect with audiences beyond their native tongue, and vice versa. New Monetization Opportunities – Creators could offer Cameo-like customized video messages or even “live” video chat sessions with their clone, while charging a premium for these experiences with the human version. ⏬Downsides Rise of Opportunistic Creators – We’ll likely see a flood of AI-powered "creators" from hustlers trying to cash in. Increased Competition – These opportunistic creators could use AI to generate content faster than human creators can alone, clogging up feeds and eating into share of platform payouts. Reduced Brand Promotions – Remember the Bud Light influencer controversy? Brands may shift budgets toward creating in-house influencers they can fully control and eliminate risk. Creators who authentically leverage AI could significantly boost engagement, reach, and income, but the competition from opportunistic newcomers will be fierce. #CreatorEconomy #Influencers #AI

Should we be outsourcing human creativity and foundational content to AI? Advancements around RLVR (reinforcement learning from verified rewards) could do just that, by teaching AI with a reward system that allows it to make entirely synthetic datasets. The implications are broad – for example, what happens to publishers and content creators? Would it destroy their model?   Proposed legislation would deregulate AI oversight for the next decade, but RLVR is a prime example of why regulation is need. Yes, AI companies should actively be building in their own technology guardrails, but are they truly rising to this challenge?   Referencing the publisher/content creator example, there are constitutional protections for creators through copyright and patent law. It enables them to protect their creativity for a period of time…being rewarded for their efforts. But AI systems (and RLVR as the next step) can easily accelerate that destruction (e.g. a patent expires and the generic content begins).   Creators, inventors, discoverers and more should have (and use) the best AI tools to accelerate their creativity and innovation. But with the right combination of controls. That way we can honor the creators and increase their capacity, not replace them. Yesterday, Axios offered some interesting perspective around AI's impact on content creators. https://lnkd.in/exGn2W6A 

I keep hearing: "AI will replace Creators." That's a small-brain take; here's the big-brain one: When I was expecting my daughter, I used Google to research strollers. Every result was a generic, SEO-driven summary of Amazon review with no human insight. They were useless. I wanted to hear from someone who had bought a bunch of strollers, tried them out, and had a real opinion. People don’t just want data. They want trusted perspectives based on real experiences. Consider: - 79% of consumers worldwide say they trust influencer recommendations. - 61% made a purchase from an influencer link in the last six months. - Fewer than 25% of U.S. adults trust AI to surface accurate results. Don't get me wrong, I use AI and love AI, but it's only valuable for audiences in the hands of creative, experienced, trustworthy humans. Unfortunately, using AI to churn out content that isn't based on human experience and opinion, but instead, based on "training" on those same generic SEO-driven summaries is going to become the norm. That’s why actual Creator-driven content is irreplacable: - It shares human experiences - It builds 1-to-many relationships - It creates trust that converts to business AI can't do any of that well. Whose trusted perspectives have you turned to lately? And what's the galaxy-brain take on AI x Creators??? —- #CreatorEconomy #ContentMarketing #AI #GenAI #Trust #InfluencerMarketing #Marketing - Follow me, Avi Gandhi - Subscribe to my newsletter at the link below my name - Reach out by email or DM for help working with Creators

AI seems to be coming for the $250 billion creator economy as companies start to build computer-generated influencers. Take Aitana López, an AI influencer with more than 243,000 followers on Instagram. She earns up to $11,000 a month, and gets paid $1,000 per post to advertise products from brands like lingerie retailer Victoria’s Secret & Co. and haircare line Olaplex Inc. (Nasdaq: OLPX) despite not being a human, according to the Financial Times. All these virtual influencers (and the companies behind them) may be taking paid gigs away from actual humans. And that's leaving those people who make a living off promoting products to their social media followers feeling the heat. One main reason for brands to strike deals with virtual influencers: An attempt to cut costs and increase visibility. "We were taken aback by the skyrocketing rates influencers charge nowadays," Diana Núñez, cofounder of The Clueless, the AI modeling agency behind López, told the FT. The steep rates for human influencers, she said, is what inspired her company to create its own influencer. And it's seemingly eyecatching, too. Instagram analysis of an ad featuring Kuki, an AI influencer who worked with H&M, found that it reached 11 times more people across the social platform compared to the reach of a traditional ad, the FT reported. That translates to a 91% decrease in cost per person remembering the advert. In response to the trend, some (human) influencers have expressed concerns that their AI competitors will be mistaken for real people, given their uncanny resemblance. "What freaks me out about these influencers is how hard it is to tell they're fake," Danae Mercer, a creator with more than 2 million followers on Instagram, told the FT. #influencers #creatoreconomy #creators #ai #tech https://lnkd.in/gUnfGCWg