About a year ago, online 3D model marketplace CGTrader introduced the ability for designers to upload AI-generated assets for purchase on the platform, in addition to the digital models they rendered themselves. The site has more than two million 3D models for sale, which serve as the foundational component for architects, video producers, game designers, and other creatives to build their product around.

But CGTrader may be a case study for how having more AI-generated products for sale does not guarantee the technology’s popularity, and why buyers still favor human-made goods. A recent report from the company found that despite one in six models uploaded to its platform being AI-generated, those assets accounted for just $1 out of every $90 in generated revenue, and just 2.6% of sales.

“AI is entering the catalog rapidly, but buyers aren’t yet opening their wallets for it,” the report said.

The report, which drew data from marketplace sales between June 2025 and May 2026, noted that only 5% of CGTrader’s customers tried an AI model and found it worked well, as compared to the 20% who tried it and found the assets inadequate. 

CGTrader CEO Dalia Lasaite pinpointed the reason why the company’s customers turned away from its AI offerings: It’s not that they hate AI; it’s just that they valued what humans had to offer more—not least of all because humans simply make better stuff.

“Buyers are looking for really high quality when they are shopping at the marketplace,” Lasaite told Fortune. “And as a result, they tend to prefer human-created 3D models, at least at this point.”

As AI adoption increases, consumers’ feelings toward the technology, particularly its application for creative uses, has become tangled. A 2025 Stanford University study found that when participants were given access to an online marketplace with both AI-generated and human-produced art, they gravitated toward AI-generated pieces, with the number of generative AI images on the platform rapidly increasing. However, a Pew Research Center poll last year found half of Americans said they liked a painting less after learning it was made by AI. In a report published on Tuesday, Pew found 52% of American adults were “more concerned than excited” about greater AI use in data life, as compared to 38% who said the same thing in 2022.

But Dennis Zhang, a professor of marketing and supply Chain, operations, and technology at Washington University in St. Louis’s Olin Business School, said more AI-generated products in marketplaces reflects more than just how people feel about AI right now; it also hints at the role AI could play in the economy more broadly.

“One side of economists always tells you, ‘Don’t worry about AI. For every technology revolution in human history, people re-pivot to something else to do,” Zhang told Fortune. “What we’re saying is something else: It’s not only people as workers will re-pivot to something else to do, it’s also people as consumers will re-pivot to the dimension that humans will matter more.”

The rise of AI in the marketplace

In his recent working research, Zhang measured the proliferation of smartphone app launches after the wide release of coding agents Claude Code and Codex. He initially found that compared to 2023 and 2024, the number of apps launched steadily increased, a trend that continued through 2026. But additional analyses controlling for other variables found that the impact of coding agents on app production was about a 160% increase in apps by April 2026 compared to the period two years prior.

Then Zhang looked at how people were engaging with this influx of apps on the marketplace. The number of apps with more than 10 reviews dropped significantly after the AI launches, suggesting people engaged less with AI-generated apps than human-made ones. These results were not causal.

“There is some slight evidence showing that the products that are helped by AI in production are less attractive than the products where we had observed before, where it’s mostly human-crafted on the coding side,” he said. “However, it’s not like the AI products are unloved by everyone, right? It’s still creating utilities for the market.”

Looking more deeply, Zhang hypothesized that for apps where humans still had a larger hand in the concept and development for the app, increased unpopularity could be simply because the apps aren’t as soon as the fully human-generated ones, which were likely developed by programmers who have been in the industry longer, and are therefore more sensitive to factors like user interface. In other words, AI has enabled more vibe coders to design more apps, but lack of experience means those apps just aren’t as good; it’s a labor issue.

On the other hand, for apps that are obviously completely AI-generated, consumers may have snubbed them because they value product scarcity and are seeking out tools with human-added value; it’s a consumer psychology issue.

Put together, Zhang posited, these attitudes toward AI-generated products can begin to paint a picture about the future of how automation is integrated into work and society: “I would actually think people’s affection or judgments of products is going to shift from the parts which are created by AI to the parts which are less likely to be created by AI,” he said.

Zhang sees evidence that AI will transform labor, not largely displace jobs. While how AI is being deployed in the workplace informed this view, he likewise believes that how consumers respond to AI in the marketplace—not completely eschewing the technology, but rather valuing human touches—affirms humans’ place in the economy.

CGTrader CEO Lasaite came to a similar conclusion. When AI was first introduced in 3D modeling, creators were apprehensive, she said, but that sentiment has slowly changed as AI-generated models became faster and cheaper to produce.

“Over time, we all realized that AI will be some kind of part of our life, and we adapt,” she said. “Maybe we can be more productive and just keep the best parts of our job to ourselves, and use the AI to help with the rest.”