\n<\/p>\n
AI may prove more disruptive. Many jobs will shrink. Some may disappear entirely, other jobs will emerge. So when production crew members worry about what AI might mean for their livelihoods, I do not dismiss those concerns. Questions surrounding copyright, training data, consent and the use of actors’ likenesses are serious issues that the industry still has to address.<\/p>\n
But those concerns are separate from whether a work is worth watching. The history of the medium reminds us that in the end, audiences do not care very much how something was made if the characters and story move them.<\/p>\n
My short film will be shot in a studio. The set itself will be built, but the world beyond it will be displayed on an LED wall. But if audiences leave the film talking mainly about my LED wall, I have probably failed.<\/p>\n
I suspect AI will eventually reach the same point.<\/p>\n
Instead of judging a work by whether it was made with AI, I would rather ask: Who made the creative decisions? Was the technology used responsibly? And most importantly, does the work connect with an audience?<\/p>\n
When almost anyone can generate an image, a song or even an entire film, simply producing content is no longer impressive.\u00a0<\/p>\n
What becomes valuable then is the ability to choose. What story is worth telling? Which shot should stay or go? When is something technically impressive but emotionally empty?<\/p>\n
Those decisions require filmmakers to have taste, experience and judgment. Once almost anybody can make the pictures, we will have fewer excuses.<\/p>\n