TLDR: A recent Substack survey of over 2,000 newsletter publishers highlights significant disagreements among creators regarding the use, ethics, and challenges of generative AI. While 52% of respondents reported using AI, 45% stated they do not, with 2% unsure. The survey also found demographic differences in AI adoption, with older publishers and men more likely to use AI, and higher usage in business and tech fields compared to artistic genres.
A new survey conducted by Substack among more than 2,000 newsletter publishers has brought to light a profound schism within the creator community concerning generative artificial intelligence. The findings, published on July 25, 2025, reveal a deeply divided landscape regarding the utility, ethical implications, and potential pitfalls of generative AI models.
One of the most striking revelations from the survey is the nearly even split in AI adoption: 52% of publishers reported actively employing generative AI, while a significant 45% indicated they are not using it. A small percentage, 2%, remained unsure about their AI usage, suggesting that some creators might be using AI-powered tools without explicit awareness. As a blog post accompanying the survey noted, ‘That ambiguity makes it harder to pin down how publishers think about and engage with AI,’ further adding that ‘While the public conversation often centers on content generation and its implications for art and authenticity, publishers on Substack are often using AI tools in more varied and nuanced ways.’
The survey also uncovered interesting demographic trends in AI adoption. Publishers over the age of 45 are more inclined to use AI, with 51% of this group reporting usage, compared to approximately 38% of those under 45. Furthermore, a notable gender gap exists, with 55% of men reporting AI use, which is 17% higher than the 38% reported by women. In terms of content focus, AI adoption is considerably more prevalent in fields such as business, technology, and finance, as opposed to more artistic genres like music, literature, and visual art.
Substack’s research underscores the contentious nature of generative AI within the creative sphere. Some digital creatives are enthusiastic about the expansive possibilities offered by AI-generated content and are willing to contribute their data for training purposes in exchange for financial compensation. Conversely, a more pessimistic faction expresses concerns over the uncanny realism of advanced AI-generated videos and the complex ownership issues arising from unauthorized AI training practices.
Also Read:
- AI Adoption Widens Workplace Divide Between Management and Employees
- Generative AI Transforms Insurance Sector, Industry Divided on Impact
Despite these divisions, there is a glimmer of potential for unity. Some pro-AI participants in the survey suggested that large language models could empower individuals with disabilities such as ADHD, dyslexia, and blindness. Given the rapid advancements in the tech industry, it appears generative AI is here to stay, which may compel detractors to identify beneficial use cases that align with their own needs.
