How is AI going to change the film industry?

When I've written articles about whether AI is capable of "stealing jobs", I've been doing so under the assumption that I still have a few more years in my chosen vocation. The thinking behind that is this: an AI can’t write in the same way as me, a human. Now, it would suffice to say that my opinion has changed. If?the strikes that are taking place in Hollywood right now?are anything to go by, the presence of AI in creative industries is no longer something we can just brush off and try forgetting about.

Let’s kick off this article by seeing what ChatGPT has to say on the matter. It's "the future" after all.

... Well, I hate to say I told you so, but I think if I were to simply copy and paste what GPT came up with, you would find it to be a rather boring reading experience. What I’ll do is give you a “best bits” instead: “artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to significantly impact the film industry in various ways”; namely, AI algorithms can be used to help with “content creation” and “post-production and visual effects”. GPT also squeezed this in as a tiny little footnote: “it's important to note that while AI brings many potential benefits, it also raises ethical and creative concerns”, “the use of AI in filmmaking should be guided by responsible practices, ensuring human oversight and maintaining the artistic integrity of the industry”.

It’s easy to state ways in which AI will change the film industry. That’s illustrated by our computer friend (or foe) above. What’s more difficult, however, is to consider the implications of these changes with a little nuance. Those final few sentences – the ones that were apparently somewhat of an afterthought for GPT – is where I come in.

By content creation, GPT means that AI can analyse data like scripts, viewer preferences and market trends to generate scripts and storylines. In short: AI can create the “perfect” script without the need for intervention from human writers. While this might sound innocent enough, it’s this, in part, which has provoked the WGA (the Writers Guild of America) to go on strike until the entertainment industry establishes clear regulations around the use of artificial intelligence. Surprisingly,?these regulations don’t involve an outright ban on the use of AI; screenwriters seem to accept that AI can streamline some of the processes they currently use. The issue they have, however, is how their pay and accreditation may be affected when their role changes from one of ideation to one that's more about re-writing and editing something that an AI created. Given the lightning speed at which technologies are developing, this is, however, something that’s only true right?now. Who’s to say that in a few years’ time AI won’t be capable of completely replacing our favourite screenwriters? If that turns out to be the case, their demands will no longer be around getting the right pay, but around getting a job at all. That has consequences for us, the viewers, too: if AI takes over, let's just say we certainly won’t be watching anything as well-crafted as?Succession.?

The use of AI in the world of post-production involves automating the creation of VFX and CGI as well as?producing virtual actors. You can fill in the gaps on what it might mean to streamline the processes involved in VFX and CGI: it’s likely that those working in post-production will soon take to the streets like the WGA. The notion of virtual actors, however, is food for thought. It’s a whole?banquet?for thought, in fact. Virtual actors are one of the AI technologies that we’re more familiar with: actor?Carrie Fisher gave her blessing for a CGI, AI-enhanced version of her younger self to appear in?Rogue One. We’ve also seen “de-aged” versions of Samuel L. Jackson, Mark Hamill and, more recently,?Harrison Ford. And, again, that might seem innocent enough... Until it isn’t. For one, computer-generating younger versions of our favourite actors means the film industry is effectively keeping?new?talent out. In February of this year,?Keanu Reeves also told Wired Magazine?that for him computer-generated acting performances mean a loss of agency: “when you give a performance in a film, you know you’re going to be edited, but you’re participating in that. If you go into deepfake land, it has none of your points of view. That’s scary”.

The notion of an AI-generated generation of actors makes you question what exactly the end result would be. Who would sit upon the couches of late-night shows? Who would TMZ harass and write sensationalised articles about? What would happen to celebrity culture at large? Actors themselves are clearly pondering these questions too. On July 14th, the American actors' union (SAG-AFTRA) went on strike as well. While this was mainly to do with an ongoing labor dispute with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), they also raised concerns about AI, arguing that the technology could be used to replicate their likeness without properly compensating them. While that might sound mad, it's something that's already happening within the nefarious world of deep-fake pornography. It's such a pressing issue, in fact, that writer Charlie Brooker recently dedicated a whole episode of Black Mirror to the matter.

Of course, not everything that AI touches will be immediately obvious on our screens. As much as I hate to admit it, I kind of agree with GPT in saying that AI could well serve a purpose in “audience analysis and marketing”, “accessibility” and “translation”. But these “less creative” roles – the ones that don't have the same level of glitz and glamour - are still someone’s livelihood. And introducing AI will have a palpable effect on that.?

Pushing AI’s effect on jobs aside, there is a part of me that wonders whether these kinds of technologies could be the solution to the industry's apparently?rampant?sexism problem. Could more AI mean less instances of the kind of sexism that leads to women being greatly under-represented behind the scenes in Hollywood? Could it also mean less serious instances of sexual harassment and help carve out a safer space for women in the film industry?

But putting “sexism” and “AI” in a sentence together opens up a whole other can of worms. I’ve talked at length in previous pieces about the “garbage in, garbage out” analogy when it comes to AI... This isn’t something that’s going to magically subside when the technology is adopted by the film industry. That is, given the tech companies behind?AI technologies are notoriously male dominated, it’s likely that the bias towards men will be reproduced in whatever ways AI is used in Hollywood. In this sense, more AI could, on the contrary, mean?more?sexism.

Where does all of this leave us? As a viewer, I'll be seeking out films with that sense of authenticity that AI just can't replicate. Those of Aardman, where you can see the fingerprints of the animators on the models used in the film. The films of Andrea Arnold, where the shaky, almost intrusive camerawork communicates something about the human that’s operating it. These are qualities that AI can only mimic. Though that might be enough for some people, I'd say there's something slightly eery about a final product that lacks the imprints of the creative labour involved in its creation.

Unfortunately, it seems that an impersonation of authenticity might become the new norm. While you would hope that the SAG-AFRA and WGA strikes might cause the bigwigs of cinema to reconsider their implementation of AI, the discovery that major studios are quietly hiring AI specialists suggests the opposite. Netflix is hiring an AI product manager, Disney's looking for a generative AI specialist and Sony wants an AI ethics expert... God help us all.

About the author

The author of this article is?Amber Rawlings. She is a freelance writer who’s written for magazines like Vice, Little White Lies, and Polyester Zine. In her spare time, she enjoys reading books with angry female protagonists and watching films with Adam Sandler in them.