Reshaping the Global Creative Industry Under the AI Shockwave: A Comparative Analysis of Responses from Three East Asian Nations

Artificial intelligence technology is reshaping the global creative industry’s ecosystem and value distribution with disruptive force. Recent survey data released by a Japanese freelancers’ union starkly quantifies the direct impact of AI on the livelihoods of creative workers. In Japan, the proliferation of generative AI has already tangibly affected practitioners’ incomes, sparking widespread concern and anxiety.

Japan’s Dilemma: The Survival Crisis of Individual Creators

The survey revealed that among nearly 25,000 freelance respondents in Japan’s cultural and arts sectors, 12% reported a decrease in their income due to generative AI. Of these, 9.3% saw their income drop by 10% to 50%, while a significant 2.7% experienced a decline of over 50%. A striking 88.6% of respondents felt threatened by AI, with 65.3% feeling “strongly” threatened.

This data ignited intense discussion on social media, filled with pessimistic sentiments. Some viewpoints sharply noted that the current crisis lies not only in veteran professionals losing commissions but also in the disappearance of entry-level job opportunities. This deprives newcomers of the chance to hone their skills, potentially leading to a shortage of seasoned talent in the coming decade.

However, attributing Japanese creators’ plight entirely to AI technology might be simplistic. The broader context of globalization—including industry relocation and intensified competition—also plays a significant role. Particularly in Japan’s crucial anime, manga, games  content sector, Chinese gaming companies, with their massive team sizes and highly industrialized production capabilities, have dramatically raised the bar for product quality. This squeezes the survival space of Japan’s domestic small-to-medium studios and “cottage industry” style creators. This “production capacity arms race” leads to high project failure rates and cost pressures, forcing Japanese and Korean companies to seek new ways to survive.

Korea’s Response: Industry Transformation and Legislation First

As a typical case of adapting to this trend, Kim Hyung-tae, CEO of the renowned Korean game company Shift Up, recently stated candidly that facing the “human wave tactics” of Chinese companies, which often involve thousands of employees, Japanese and Korean studios with mere hundred-person teams struggle to compete on “volume.” To bridge this vast production gap, companies like Shift Up have explicitly turned to AI technology to enhance efficiency, aiming for a productivity leap. For them, embracing AI is a necessary means of survival in the intense international competition, not merely a cost-cutting tool.

At the national level, the Korean government officially implemented the “Framework Act on Artificial Intelligence Development and Trust-building” (the “AI Basic Act”) on January 22, 2026. This law establishes a principle of “allow first, regulate later,” explicitly supporting AI technology development and industry revitalization, while setting up an “AI Safety Institute” responsible for risk analysis and standard setting.

The Act categorizes AI into general and high-risk types, imposing strict transparency, safety management, and disclosure obligations on “high-risk AI” used in areas like criminal investigation, educational assessment, and traffic safety. Particularly noteworthy is Article 36, which introduces a “domestic agent designation system.” It requires overseas AI companies of a certain scale to designate a domestic agent in Korea to directly face regulatory requirements. This is seen as a “defensive” piece of legislation seeking balance between encouraging innovation and establishing digital sovereignty. Although its maximum administrative fine (approximately 156,000 RMB) is far lower than EU standards, its accompanying powers to order rectification and business suspension provide practical enforceability.

China’s Path: Policy Safeguards and Systemic Empowerment

As one of the sources perceived to have triggered the global “involution” (Nei Juan) in content industry production capacity, China demonstrates a more proactive and systematic policy foresight in responding to AI’s impact on the job market.

China’s Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security recently announced plans to release specific policy documents addressing AI’s impact on employment, implementing an initiative to “stabilize positions, expand scale, and improve quality.” Specific measures include: guiding policies to support industries with strong job creation capacity; enhancing training in digital skills for workers facing job transformations due to AI; and exploring new “human-machine collaboration” models to mitigate the risk of “machines replacing humans.” This attempts to build, at the national level, an employment safety ne tadapted to the AI era, transforming technological dividends into high-quality employment momentum.

Further policy support comes from the State Council’s recently issued “Opinions on Deepening the Implementation of the ‘AI+’ Action.” This document acknowledges AI’s dual role in reshaping the employment landscape: it may replace traditional jobs but can also give rise to new positions, professions, and forms (e.g., “intelligent agents”). Its core approach is to shift the mindset from a passive “substitution paradigm” to an active “empowerment paradigm.” Through构建 (building) employment-friendly development models, improving skills training systems, creating efficient public employment services, strengthening policy coordination, and building flexible social security systems, it aims to promote positive interaction between AI and employment.

Deep-Seated Industrial Transformation: From “Content Economy” to “Framework Economy”

AI’s influence is penetrating the underlying logic of the creative industry. Industry analysis suggests that the influence of traditional artists may weaken relatively in the future, while “meta-creators”—creators of creative tools (like game engines, AI pipelines)—will gain more sway. The core of value creation is shifting from the final “content output” (games, films) to the “frameworks and tools” (engines, toolchains, structured worlds) that empower mass production. This marks an evolution from a “content economy” to a “framework economy.”

The evolution of game engines (like Unreal Engine) from game development tools to general-purpose platforms for architecture, automotive design, and film virtual production serves as clear evidence. AI can not only “render” environments but also “understand” their underlying logic, making game worlds crucial模拟场 (simulation fields) for AI to learn complex rules. It is projected that by 2029, the market size of generative AI in the gaming industry will exceed $4.13 billion,催生出 (giving rise to) entirely new genres like AI-narrative games and AI companion games.

Conclusion: Diverse Realities and a Shared Future Through the Prism of Technology

From the declining incomes of Japanese freelance illustrators, to the technological transformation of Korean game companies and national legislation, to the Chinese government’s systemic policy safeguards, AI technology acts as a prism, refracting the different realities and coping strategies of various economies and industry segments within the wave of technological change.

Japan’s case highlights the vulnerability of individual creators under the combined impact of technological shock and global competition. Korea’s path demonstrates attempts by industry to proactively leverage technology for upgrading, while simultaneously establishing a regulatory framework through legislation. China’s response reflects a top-down design approach, systematically attempting to guide technological dividends toward employment momentum and social benefits.

For global creative workers, adjustment and growing pains may be inevitable. However, the key to the future lies in: how individuals can leverage new technologies to equip themselves, achieving skill upgrading and role transformation; how enterprises can grasp the value shift from “content” to “framework”; and how social mechanisms can build effective buffering and empowerment systems to ensure technological progress benefits broader segments of society. This AI-driven industrial reshaping is not only about efficiency and cost but also, on a deeper level, concerns the diversity of the creative ecosystem, the reconfiguration of labor value, and the future格局 (landscape) of global cultural production.