Trend 1: The behaviour arrived before the label.

AI tools are ordinary. AI clones are not.

82% of Americans know ChatGPT and 77% know Gemini; only 6% recognise none of the eleven tools we tested. Among AI users, half use one at least once a day.

The idea of an AI version of yourself is starting from scratch: 52% had never heard of it, and only 11% say they could explain it to someone else.

Americans are already delegating their voice.

38% of AI users say they have let an AI write or act for them without the person on the other end knowing. That rises to 60% among 18–34s and falls to 16% among over-55s.

None of the Americans surveyed described a digital twin. They described a drafted email or a reply that went out sounding like them — the same instinct a clone would formalise.

Trend 2: The country splits, and it splits twice.

There is no standard American.

55% place themselves at the closed end of the openness scale (0–3) and 29% at the open end (7–10). Asked directly, 25% would want a clone and 39% would never want one under any circumstances.

Age breaks above 55, not at 35.

18–34s and 35–54s look alike: 45% and 38% at the open end. Above 55, it drops to 9%, and outright refusal rises to 54%.

Gender is just as strong.

Half of women would never want an AI clone, against 29% of men. The gap widens with money: 59% of men find earning through a clone appealing, against 33% of women — the largest gender gap in the study.

Trend 3: Everyone draws the same line, just at different times.

Research and admin, yes. Commitments, no.

From a list of twelve tasks, 70% would let a clone compare prices and recommend products, and 55% would let it manage a calendar. Only 19% would let it make a large purchase without asking, and 27% would let it move money.

The leash stays short.

53% would give a clone no independent authority at all — suggestions only, or approval before every action. Just 11% would let one operate unsupervised.

The order never changes.

Younger respondents rank the twelve tasks in the same order as older ones; they simply allow more of them. The worries — impersonation, saying something you never would, losing control — barely move by age, gender or income.

Trend 4: The people most likely to agree ask for the least.

Framing it as income nearly doubles the audience.

46% find it appealing to earn money through an AI clone, against 25% who want one at all. A fixed monthly fee is the most appealing structure (27%); a bill discount collapses to 3%.

The willing are the affordable.

Among 18–34s — the group most willing to license a clone, 62% would accept less than $100 a month. The highest asking prices come from older groups least likely to take the offer.

The bottom line. 

Americans are not refusing AI clones outright. They are setting terms — and on consent, they speak with one voice: 77% want it made illegal to build a clone of someone without permission.

For the research industry, the message is direct. 57% would trust findings less if told they were built partly on AI clones, against 16% who would trust them more. Disclose synthetic sourcing, and budget for what disclosure costs.