Over the past five years, the integration of Artificial Intelligence into the creation of cinema has sparked fierce debate, but the argument for AI is anything but clear. Technology has always had a mᴀssive impact on the film industry, and the business has taken several huge leaps forward in the century since commercialized filmmaking began.

The invention of synchronized sound helped to expand the industry, while the proliferation of CGI had a mᴀssive impact on special effects, for better or worse. However, AI is something wholly unique, and is distinctly threatening compared to previous technological revolutions. It seeks to usurp many conventional filmmaking tools by replacing them with artificially constructed alternatives.

Naturally, this means that the human element is removed from the equation, whether for the sake of financial streamlining, ease of process, or simply because the opportunity presents itself. Art is a uniquely human concept, and even commercialized art like film is representative of someone’s expression. The act of doing the art is as important as the final product, but AI simply replaces the doing with a few keystrokes.

The greatest movies of all time didn’t happen by accident, nor were they the result of an algorithm that smashed preexisting data together. Instead, they sprang from the minds of dozens of people who put their hearts and souls into crafting a project that connected with the audience’s humanity. Those bringing AI to film don’t seem to understand that.

The Movie Industry Now Has Its Own AI-Generated Performer & AI Director Program

It was inevitable that someone would dive headfirst into the burgeoning AI sphere, and the results have already been shockingly dystopian. Actor and technologist Eline Van der Velden recently announced the world’s first AI-generated actress, called Tilly Norwood. She’s so confident in the fictional star that she believes “Tilly” will be signed by an agency sooner rather than later.

This has naturally sparked a lot of controversy, with various big names in and around Hollywood expressing unease about such an uncanny idea. Details are still scant about the AI actor, and how it will actually be integrated into movies is unclear. Less unclear is the arrival of The Sweet Idleness, a film that was made by an AI director.

The Italian-produced experiment has been produced with a program called FellinAI, which is a reference to a brilliant human filmmaker that didn’t need AI to come up with his groundbreaking ideas. It’s the first of its kind, but Hollywood has already been utilizing AI on a smaller scale, such as when The Brutalist used generative programs during the pre-production process.

Sparking Conversation Is Not A Justified Reason For AI-Generated Talent

As soon as “Tilly Norwood” was announced, its creator began to feel the heat from the controversy it generated. Eline Van der Velden was quick to release a statement on the matter, reᴀssuring detractors that “[Tilly Norwood] is not a replacement for a human being” but only a work of art. She insisted that the AI actor merely “sparks conversation.“

That is a common argument for AI integration into art, but the argument itself falls completely flat. Yes, art can spark conversation, but that is not the sole purpose of creation, and it isn’t always a good thing.

If Hollywood’s major studios got together and decided every single movie from now until the end of time should have a five-hour runtime, that would certainly spark conversation. That doesn’t mean the idea itself isn’t completely ridiculous. The sparking of conversation doesn’t automatically prove the trigger is productive or, indeed, welcome.

The problem with Van der Velden’s response is that it is far too broad. One could say almost anything can be turned into a positive by simply framing it as a conversation-starter. AI isn’t going anywhere, but these so-called conversations need to happen before we’re in a position where talent agencies are alleged to be circling an AI performer. Instead, a new technological atrocity appears, and the world must seemingly accept it with little input.

Saying AI-Generated Talent Isn’t Intended To “Replace” Is Naive

The people behind The Sweet Idleness and “Tilly Norwood” issued very similar statements about their products. One point they repeatedly tried to hammer home was that AI is not intended to replace humans in the process of making films.

Even if AI creators have the best of intentions, it’s naive to think film executives won’t use the tools they’ve created to remove any power that creatives have earned. The 2023 Hollywood strikes exposed a stark divide between labor and capital, and it’s easy to see how the benefits of AI may be attractive to studios.

What the creators’ arguments either ignore or don’t understand is that the entertainment industry is a zero-sum game. If “Tilly Norwood” is cast, that means a human being is not being cast. Similarly, AI integration in other aspects of filmmaking means replacing people with programs. There has never been a technological jump that didn’t cost someone a job.

The prospect of AI performers and directors comes as such a big worry because the commercial appeal is fairly obvious. While maybe not straight away, one can imagine how an AI cast might soon be deemed more efficient, more obedient, and perhaps cheaper than a human ensemble. An AI actor isn’t calling in sick. An AI director isn’t going to push back on studio notes.

That, of course, comes with a huge artistic loss that cheapens the entire medium of film and calls into question the point of making movies in the first place. But in an industry that has always been a tug-of-war between profit and art, the threat of replacing the human spirit is absolutely real, even if that isn’t what AI’s proponents intend. To ignore that fact is to ignore the message behind almost every story about robotics and AI ever written.

Is An AI Movie Revolution Inevitable? What Comes Next?

Despite the doom and gloom surrounding AI, it’s possible that the so-called revolution won’t be as violent and destructive as many fear. It’s unclear exactly how the public will react to a 100% AI movie, and it may be too odd for audiences to stomach. There has already been pushback from very powerful people, which may help stem the tide.

SAG-AFTRA issued a scathing statement on the subject of “Tilly Norwood”, calling it “a character generated by a computer program that was trained on the work of countless professional performers — without permission.” Therein lies the biggest argument against AI in film; AI-generated imagery and actors are taking from humans without credit. They typically compile dozens of real-life sources into a collage of digital information.

Universal Studios took a big swipe at AI when it announced that films like The Bad Guys 2 and Jurᴀssic World: Rebirth couldn’t be used for AI training (via The Hollywood Reporter). This undermines the foundations of AI, since it requires actual human work to cultivate its supposedly new ideas.

Once the most powerful people in Hollywood see their bottom line affected, they will turn on AI. While it may never go away, Artificial Intelligence faces a future where it gets refined and regulated until it fades into the background. 100% AI movies and actors are a fad, but real movies by real actors are not, and generative programs may ultimately become just another tool.