Reading time: about 6 minutes
A mighty yet controversial force is looming over Hollywood. To some, it brings the potential to open the flood gates of human creativity once and for all, stripping away every limitation, from budget constraints to writer’s block. To others, it is a manifest threat to said creativity and the integrity that is so essential to works of expression and the capturing of the human experience. This force is generative AI.
“Cinema is a young medium, only around 125 years old, so we have to be open to how it can evolve,” said director Martin Scorsese in a statement posted on the website of Black Forest Labs, a German AI research lab with a major focus on generative image and video AI, of which he joined as an advisor and partner in June. “The other day, somebody wrote me an email, said, ‘What is your stance on AI?’ And my answer was very short. I said, ‘I’d rather die,’” said Frankensteindirector Guillermo del Toro in an interview with NPR.
On Oct. 10, Spider-Noirstar Nicolas Cage revealed at a New York Comic Con panel that he refused to sign a waiver allowing Amazon to use AI in the production of the TV show, likely contributing to the cancellation of its second season. “I am not an AI-friendly actor, so like, connect those dots!” he said. Meanwhile, the world’s first MPA-rated movie with completely AI-generated visuals, titled Gods Don’t Give Gifts, is set to hit theatres Dec. 4 and has reportedly planned a bid for Best Animated Feature at the Oscars.
Given all of this context, an obvious question arises: Is generative AI in film production worth it? I believe that in order to find an answer to this, we must first ask: worth what? What gives the art of filmmaking its value, and what is the ultimate intention with incorporating generative AI in film production? Acme Studios, an AI visual effects studio, claims its tools can enable filmmakers to cut shoot schedules by 60-70% and significantly reduce operational expenses. An enticing reality to be sure, but viewing the process that occurs on a film set through a purely economic lens is missing the point of the art, itself.
While it’s certainly true that large-scale productions like the typical Steven Spielberg or Christopher Nolan film require a tremendous allocation of staff members and resources, they foster communities of working artists that establish strongholds of creativity in the workforce. Every angle strategized by the cinematographer, every sentence typed out in a screenplay, every frame designed by an animator — these all contribute to the realization of the human experience via the direct manifestation of expressive elements by human creators. In other words, the people who have lived and experienced the morals and themes portrayed on the screen — they are the ones in charge of every last element of expression, and that, to me, is an essential aspect of filmmaking. The increasing popularity of generative AI use in filmmaking is a threat to the contributions of each one of the aforementioned niches, and many more.
Proponents of generative AI in the film industry compare its growing embrace to previous technological revolutions, which also came with the short-term displacement of traditional laborers and the growing pains of economic transition. Here emerges an inconsistency. The sewing machine’s displacement of traditional seamstresses was welcomed because of the need to put clothes on the back of a booming population. The automated elevator’s displacement of lift operators was welcomed because people realized they could ascend and descend buildings without requiring the constant presence of a human attendee. The electronic calculator’s displacement of human computers was welcomed because reliance on automated, perfect calculations bolstered the infrastructure of major innovating organizations like NASA. In each of these cases, the objective that gave the displaced sector’s labor purpose was streamlined by technological advancements. But what is the objective of the filmmaker’s labor? Is it merely the accumulation of profit? If so, then the embrace of generative AI in the film industry is unmistakably a sensible endeavor. But if the objective of filmmaking is to both entertain and inspire discourse through creative depictions of the human experience, whether fictitious or factual, then the surrender of artistic determination to AI in any capacity is counterintuitive.
It should be acknowledged that AI in general has been utilized in filmmaking for decades in manners that don’t actually seize the reins of artistic expression: motion capture, audio cleanup, rotoscoping, footage stabilization, etc. Modern generative AI, however, is unique in the sense that it seizes the role of determining an output’s elements of expression. This truth is embedded in its name — it’s generative. It actively takes the place of a human creative through generating an output based on a set of instructions. One may object that the clearly thought out instructions given by a human creative are what maintain the direct link between the creator’s vision and the output. Within <a href="https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf” rel=”nofollow noopener” target=”_blank”>Part II of the U.S. Copyright Office’s multi-part policy report on generative AI and copyrightability lies a perfect response to this objection: “The fact that identical prompts can generate multiple different outputs … indicates a lack of human control.” The truth is, no matter how you slice it, generative AI necessarily encroaches on the powers of the human creative in determining the form of a work.
Film, and digital content in general, is recognized as the most widely consumed art medium of our time. Drawing in billions of consumers every year, the film industry holds immeasurable power in preserving and perpetuating human culture. The extent to which we allow generative AI to permeate this industry will determine whether this power is sustained or undermined.
Jordan White is a member of the Class of 2029 in the College of Arts and Sciences. He is a columnist for the Arts & Culture department and can be reached at jiw39@cornell.edu.
Has Girlbossification Gone Too Far?
Stop the Wedding and Plan a Funeral! (With ‘The Girl Of Your Dreams’)
