What new data reveals about authors’ attitudes about AI
The debate over whether and when to use AI in creative writing isn’t going away anytime soon. Rather than lining up on one side or the other, it’s more productive to examine how authors’ habits are actually evolving—and now we have solid data to inform that discussion.
A new study commissioned by Gotham Ghostwriters examines AI and the Writing Profession. The introduction frames the question in almost existential terms: “Is AI a powerful productivity tool or an existential threat to our field? A plagiarism machine or an incredible advance in human-computer collaboration?”
While there’s no widespread consensus, the study reveals a predictable pattern: writers familiar with AI tools are much more open to incorporating them into their workflows, while those philosophically opposed remain firmly resistant.
What’s surprising is how many fiction authors claim to be sitting on the sidelines. Let’s examine the results.
The survey collected responses from 291 fiction authors and 1,190 writing professionals, including content marketers, communications specialists, technical writers, and journalists. Respondents acknowledged that AI represents both threat and opportunity—not an inconsistency, but a realistic recognition of the disruption underway.
Two charts particularly stood out. First, here’s a snapshot of AI usage frequency among various writer groups (fiction authors weren’t included in this breakdown):
Among writing professionals who use AI for the widest variety of tasks, 92% report increased productivity and 59% say they produce higher-quality results. Most striking: professional writers using AI most frequently earn $47,000 more annually than non-users.
That’s a significant gap. While this doesn’t prove causation, it suggests the most productive writers are leveraging AI most effectively.
Fiction authors: More hesitant at the start
Now let’s focus on fiction authors. (Their detailed breakdown begins on page 23 of the report.) Only 42% of surveyed fiction authors report using AI at least occasionally. (The remainder likely do but don’t recognize it or won’t acknowledge it.) Among those who embrace AI, sentiment is overwhelmingly positive: 60% say it improves their writing quality and 87% report productivity gains. The most popular tools are familiar names: ChatGPT, Claude, ProWritingAid, and Google Gemini.
The 58% who claim never or rarely to use AI in their creative process raises questions. Do they genuinely avoid AI for research—a requirement in nearly all novels? Do they refuse AI image generation for blog posts, marketing materials, Facebook ads, or book blurbs? When querying agents, do they spend days manually compiling lengthy synopses or chapter-by-chapter outlines? Do they demand their book designers avoid AI entirely when creating cover art?
I suspect many authors are intimidated by fierce blowback from a small but vocal minority of readers—the ones who flood Facebook comments and social media with all-caps tirades against anything AI-related.
They’re a noisy bunch, but their numbers will dwindle as certain AI applications become standard practice in publishing.
The real question isn’t whether to use AI, but where and when.
A partner, not a substitute
According to the survey, only 11% of fiction authors use AI to generate text for their works. Far more common applications include brainstorming, research, and grammar assistance—specifically for title ideas, outline generation, identifying continuity errors and plot holes, and creating visuals for blog posts or advertisements.
This aligns with what we’ve observed at Authors A.I.: The vast majority of authors want an AI critique partner and research assistant, not an AI ghostwriter.
As the report concludes: “For writers, it’s clear that the most intensive AI users are becoming more productive and generating more opportunities and, in some cases, higher incomes. Writers who use AI less intensively would benefit from leaning into the opportunities it appears to be creating.”
It’s time for authors to embrace these tools. The water’s just fine.
