In a statement, David Barber, the president of MPSE, was unflinching in his perspective on the hot-button issue. “It is an enormous question to ask: how much of our humanity are we willing to give away to technology, especially in the arts? The time to ponder that question, set up boundaries, and guide how A.I. is assimilated into our workflow and lives was yesterday,” he wrote. “The dam of A.I. has broken, and the waters are upon us. Choosing what we embrace as award-worthy filmmaking is a way of diverting those waters while we grapple with this exponential change. As A.I. technology infiltrates and permeates our industry, rules and accepted practices for its use need to emerge that keep artists at the forefront.”
Artists and studios across the industry are currently grappling with how to handle this flood, to borrow Barber’s metaphor. Films like The Brutalist and Emilia Pérez caused a brouhaha over their use of AI-powered language-tweaking software at the 2024 Oscars. The Academy, by the way, recently declared that films made with AI were eligible to win awards. Multiple filmmakers like James Cameron, Darren Aronofsky, and Natasha Lyonne have also embraced the technology by joining the board of an AI firm, launching an AI filmmaking venture, and directing an AI-assisted “hybrid film,” respectively.
On the other hand, some parties are positioning themselves as a wall against the flood. This week, several major studios—including Disney Enterprises, Marvel, Lucasfilm, 20th Century, Universal City Studios Productions, and DreamWorks Animation—teamed up to launch a suit against generative AI firm Midjourney, calling it a “bottomless pit of plagiarism.” They join a litany of other suits currently underway around the world. It’s good to start prepping the ark, but we may not have to climb on just yet.
