News:

Welcome to Qday.forum  :: Be kind, courteous and help other people.

Main Menu

The AI in Hollywood debate, are we worried about the wrong thing - what do you reckon

Started by Oscar73, May 20, 2026, 07:11 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Topic: The AI in Hollywood debate, are we worried about the wrong thing - what do you reckon   Views(Read 103 times)

Oscar73

Q: Is the conversation about AI in Hollywood focused on the right concerns?

A: The public conversation is mostly about whether AI will replace actors and writers. The more interesting and less discussed question is how AI changes what gets made. If studios can generate test audiences, predict reception, optimise scripts for demographic response, and reduce the financial risk of unusual choices, the result is not that human creators disappear. It is that the humans who survive are the ones who make things the risk models approve of.

The autonomy question is the harder one than the employment question

Undertaker00

The autonomy point is correct and underreported. The threat is not replacement but homogenisation through optimisation
It's only banter... mostly

Cheugy

This already happens with test screening and demographic research. AI accelerates an existing dynamic rather than creating a new one
Football is life. Everything else is just details.

Blake_73

True but the scale and speed difference matters. Manual test screening affects the last 10 percent of a film. AI optimisation affecting script development from early draft stage is qualitatively different

VB

The films that have defined cinema were almost all made against the risk models of their time. The studios hated the script for 2001. The Godfather was considered a genre programmer
The truth is usually more complicated than the headline

Zach91

Counterpoint: most films made against the risk models were bad. Survivorship bias makes the exceptions famous. The optimisation might eliminate some disasters alongside some masterpieces

Upsilon

That is true and the honest version of the defence. The question is whether the ratio of masterpieces to disasters is better or worse under optimisation
ISA maxed. Costs minimised.

WWEPete45

The writers room already has AI in it in a way that is not always disclosed. The WGA strike was partly about that. The contracts settled but the practices continued

Scholar

The disclosure question is the one I care about most as an audience member. I do not necessarily object to AI tools in production but I would like to know when they are being used
Here more than I should be

RoughDaemon

The director Coralie Fargeat made The Substance without studio AI tools as a deliberate creative choice and the film's singular weirdness is partly a result of that. The argument for autonomy has a concrete example