Unless artists are given the opportunity to remove their work from a model, or negotiate their own price either before or after training, it sure feels like theft to me. A human artist listening to a song and being inspired by it and a model permanently training on it are not the same, ethically speaking.
I doubt anyone really cares about niche uses of AI, like in editing or for generating a story board. Even though its actually already very useful there. Where people get upset, and rightfully so, is when AI is used to generate the majority of a film, ad, etc. Mostly because it sucks. It has an uncanny valley, like CGI, that people can pick up on. Models will get better sure but I'd bet money we'll just get better at spotting it.
I'm glad I read this piece, thanks for writing it.
Seems worth noting: the Princess Mononoke "trailer" that you link to really is offensively bad! It steals the audio from the beautiful hand-drawn animated film and then just slaps some gross derivative CGI on top. Not a single beautiful shot. Not a "live action" anything!
This touches a nerve for me because I just showed this movie to my children recently and it's so full of life and its complexity--it's about the remains of beauty and soulfulness in a disenchanted world. To turn this movie, in particular, into a vessel for slop, and act like you've done the world a service, really is rotten. OF COURSE he doesn't deserve any threats of violence against him, but honestly it's not a good thing that he put it back up and I'd be glad to hear if he gets sued.
I have been a long time reader of this newsletter and this was by far the best article I have read. It was very nuanced, balanced, and offered excellent perspectives on all sides of this massive existential inflection point - well done! I must say that there is something fundamentally different about the prospect of tech workers / lawyers / accountants losing their jobs to AI (already happening at scale) vs artists, musicians, filmmakers having the same happen to them. Something about the human condition inherently understands the difference between a job to pay my electric bill vs a job to create something beautiful from nothing... they are not the same.
Hollywood is running into the same pattern we’ve seen in every creative field. when the tech jumps ahead faster than the norms, people push back hard.
and like I wrote in Video, the problem isn’t the models themselves, it’s the incentives around them. if studios try to replace talent instead of augmenting it, you get exactly this kind of blowback.
the healthy path is the same one I outline in Anything: use AI to expand what creators can do, not to shortcut the people doing it.
Clandestine AI usage extends into the upper reaches of the industry. Hayden knows an editor who works with a major director who has directed $100 million films. “He’s already using AI, sometimes without people knowing.”
It does seem this way. I think it's here, and people will adopt quietly or not. Great Article!
What struck me reading this is how much of the anxiety here is really about the definition of art. AI evolves in full view, but the meaning of creativity keeps shifting quietly underneath it. Every time a model gets better at images, trailers, or thumbnails, we push the goalposts and say “real art” is the part it still cannot touch. In a way, AI is becoming the negative space that outlines human creativity. It shows us which parts of the process are mechanical and which parts are grounded in lived experience, presence, and reputation. The fight in Hollywood is not only about jobs. It is also about who gets to decide where that boundary lives.
Unless artists are given the opportunity to remove their work from a model, or negotiate their own price either before or after training, it sure feels like theft to me. A human artist listening to a song and being inspired by it and a model permanently training on it are not the same, ethically speaking.
I'm totally uninterested in AI-generated film/TV content. I don't think that I'm alone in feeling that way.
I doubt anyone really cares about niche uses of AI, like in editing or for generating a story board. Even though its actually already very useful there. Where people get upset, and rightfully so, is when AI is used to generate the majority of a film, ad, etc. Mostly because it sucks. It has an uncanny valley, like CGI, that people can pick up on. Models will get better sure but I'd bet money we'll just get better at spotting it.
I'm glad I read this piece, thanks for writing it.
Seems worth noting: the Princess Mononoke "trailer" that you link to really is offensively bad! It steals the audio from the beautiful hand-drawn animated film and then just slaps some gross derivative CGI on top. Not a single beautiful shot. Not a "live action" anything!
This touches a nerve for me because I just showed this movie to my children recently and it's so full of life and its complexity--it's about the remains of beauty and soulfulness in a disenchanted world. To turn this movie, in particular, into a vessel for slop, and act like you've done the world a service, really is rotten. OF COURSE he doesn't deserve any threats of violence against him, but honestly it's not a good thing that he put it back up and I'd be glad to hear if he gets sued.
🥰🥰🥰
I have been a long time reader of this newsletter and this was by far the best article I have read. It was very nuanced, balanced, and offered excellent perspectives on all sides of this massive existential inflection point - well done! I must say that there is something fundamentally different about the prospect of tech workers / lawyers / accountants losing their jobs to AI (already happening at scale) vs artists, musicians, filmmakers having the same happen to them. Something about the human condition inherently understands the difference between a job to pay my electric bill vs a job to create something beautiful from nothing... they are not the same.
Maybe I am dense, but I can’t glean this from your comment - which do you think is worse?
the reaction here isn’t surprising.
Hollywood is running into the same pattern we’ve seen in every creative field. when the tech jumps ahead faster than the norms, people push back hard.
and like I wrote in Video, the problem isn’t the models themselves, it’s the incentives around them. if studios try to replace talent instead of augmenting it, you get exactly this kind of blowback.
the healthy path is the same one I outline in Anything: use AI to expand what creators can do, not to shortcut the people doing it.
Clandestine AI usage extends into the upper reaches of the industry. Hayden knows an editor who works with a major director who has directed $100 million films. “He’s already using AI, sometimes without people knowing.”
It does seem this way. I think it's here, and people will adopt quietly or not. Great Article!
Love this!
What struck me reading this is how much of the anxiety here is really about the definition of art. AI evolves in full view, but the meaning of creativity keeps shifting quietly underneath it. Every time a model gets better at images, trailers, or thumbnails, we push the goalposts and say “real art” is the part it still cannot touch. In a way, AI is becoming the negative space that outlines human creativity. It shows us which parts of the process are mechanical and which parts are grounded in lived experience, presence, and reputation. The fight in Hollywood is not only about jobs. It is also about who gets to decide where that boundary lives.