Recent advances in generative AI technologies, such as large language models (LLMs), have raised both excitement and concerns about the future of human-AI co-creation in writing. This study explores how much value people place on AI assistance in writing, how AI integration affects writing perceptions and performance, and the associated risks. The research involved a randomized experiment with 379 participants, who were asked to write a 200–250 word article within 45 minutes in one of three modes: independent writing, writing with editing assistance from ChatGPT, or collaborative writing with ChatGPT. Participants were presented with two job offers: one for independent writing and another for writing with AI assistance, with varying payment amounts. The study aimed to quantify the financial value participants attached to AI assistance and assess its impact on writing experience and performance. The results showed that participants were willing to forgo financial payments to receive AI assistance, especially when AI could provide direct content generation assistance. For instance, participants were willing to forgo $0.85 to receive ChatGPT's content generation assistance, which is 28.3% of the $3 payment they would receive for independent writing. This value translates to an hourly wage of $1.71, representing 12.5% of their average hourly wage. The value of AI assistance was particularly high when the writing task required creativity, such as writing a creative story. However, content generation assistance from AI also came with risks, including decreased satisfaction with writing outcomes, reduced accountability, and reduced diversity in writing. Participants with higher confidence in their writing abilities generally valued AI assistance less. Additionally, those more familiar with ChatGPT valued its editing assistance in creative writing more than its content generation assistance in argumentative essays. The study also found that AI assistance reduced cognitive load in argumentative essay writing but not in creative story writing. Participants in the AI-primary mode reported lower enjoyment and ability to express creative goals compared to those in the independent or human-primary modes. Overall, the study highlights the potential benefits and risks of generative AI in writing, emphasizing the need for further research to understand the long-term implications of AI integration in human-AI co-creation.Recent advances in generative AI technologies, such as large language models (LLMs), have raised both excitement and concerns about the future of human-AI co-creation in writing. This study explores how much value people place on AI assistance in writing, how AI integration affects writing perceptions and performance, and the associated risks. The research involved a randomized experiment with 379 participants, who were asked to write a 200–250 word article within 45 minutes in one of three modes: independent writing, writing with editing assistance from ChatGPT, or collaborative writing with ChatGPT. Participants were presented with two job offers: one for independent writing and another for writing with AI assistance, with varying payment amounts. The study aimed to quantify the financial value participants attached to AI assistance and assess its impact on writing experience and performance. The results showed that participants were willing to forgo financial payments to receive AI assistance, especially when AI could provide direct content generation assistance. For instance, participants were willing to forgo $0.85 to receive ChatGPT's content generation assistance, which is 28.3% of the $3 payment they would receive for independent writing. This value translates to an hourly wage of $1.71, representing 12.5% of their average hourly wage. The value of AI assistance was particularly high when the writing task required creativity, such as writing a creative story. However, content generation assistance from AI also came with risks, including decreased satisfaction with writing outcomes, reduced accountability, and reduced diversity in writing. Participants with higher confidence in their writing abilities generally valued AI assistance less. Additionally, those more familiar with ChatGPT valued its editing assistance in creative writing more than its content generation assistance in argumentative essays. The study also found that AI assistance reduced cognitive load in argumentative essay writing but not in creative story writing. Participants in the AI-primary mode reported lower enjoyment and ability to express creative goals compared to those in the independent or human-primary modes. Overall, the study highlights the potential benefits and risks of generative AI in writing, emphasizing the need for further research to understand the long-term implications of AI integration in human-AI co-creation.