If this is the future, count me out. This onslaught of AI slop and the fact that few actually really want this stuff, in my opinion, will only make filmmakers with the vision of a Tarantino or Wes Anderson that much more valuable.
The flood of AI content will make the true visionaries more valuable, not less—just as TikTok didn’t make Scorsese irrelevant. The difference is, AI could help the next “Tarantino” or “Wes Anderson” emerge from somewhere far outside the current system.
For most people, yes—it’ll be disposable slop. But for a small percentage, it’ll be the fastest paintbrush they’ve ever had, and the world will get to see their vision without waiting for Hollywood’s green light.
I'm not sure I agree here. Yes, there may be some who use AI to articulate a vision that has some level of artistic merit but it will need to be discoverable and in what portends to be an onslaught of AI-generated trash, that will become supremely challenging. We are already drowning in more content that anyone has any use for.
As well, I feel that AI is both the means and the end. If the AI tech bros have their way, it will be a tool to replace, not supplement, labour. We're going to get more of this, whether we like it or not, but the salient question, as it comes to AI-generated creative work, is whether we actually want any of this stuff. I don't believe that a substantial majority do. I'm not sure it will ultimately matter but it is a hope strong enough at least to cling to.
That's a crucial question that gets to the heart of how this transformation will affect real people's livelihoods. As someone in SAG, you're right to be concerned—but I think the future for actors is more nuanced than either "total replacement" or "business as usual."
Here's how I see it playing out:
**The Immediate Reality (Next 2-3 Years)**
AI will first impact background work, crowd scenes, and potentially some commercial/industrial video work. But leading performances, character work, and anything requiring genuine emotional nuance will still need human actors. The technology isn't there yet for truly convincing lead performances across a full narrative.
**The Hybrid Phase (3-7 Years)**
This is where it gets interesting for SAG members. I predict we'll see new categories of work emerge:
- **Performance capture for AI training** - actors lending their likeness, voice, and movement patterns to create AI avatars (with proper compensation and rights protection)
- **AI direction and refinement** - actors working with AI-generated performances to add the human touches that make them believable
- **Hybrid productions** - human actors in key roles, AI filling supporting cast and background
**The New Ecosystem (7+ Years)**
Even in my "billion filmmakers" scenario, here's why human actors won't disappear:
1. **Authenticity Premium** - Just like handmade goods became *more* valuable after mass production, genuine human performance may become a premium offering
2. **Live and Interactive Content** - Streaming, live events, theater, and interactive media will still need real humans
3. **New Roles** - Performance coaching for AI, motion capture specialization, AI avatar management
**What SAG Should Fight For Now:**
- Strict consent and compensation protocols for any AI training on member likenesses
- Residuals for AI-generated content based on member performances
- Clear labeling requirements so audiences know what's AI vs. human
- Retraining programs for emerging hybrid roles
The actors who will thrive are those who lean into what makes them irreplaceably human—authentic emotional connection, improvisation, live interaction with audiences, and the kind of magnetic screen presence that can't be programmed.
What's your sense of how SAG is positioning itself for these changes?
The thornier issue is the complete replacement of humans. You partially deal with that, although I believe that the employment that will arise, as you describe it, will far from cover the loss of acting employment.
The implementation of older "new" technologies like radio and TV was heavily contested and litigated. However, the issues were much more straightforward and solutions were basically found that balanced all the interests. On the other hand, the "new" technology of streaming has thoroughly failed to uphold the interests of musicians. AI LLM's have trained without payment on the work of artists of all kinds.
Ultimately, consumers will decide the degree to which human creativity is valued above that of computers. Unfortunately, convenience and inertia guide most commerce. Given the power of just a few commercial and tech giants to control these exchanges, it's hard to be optimistic that consumer pressure will keep AI software from maximizing profit at the expense of the artist.
This will do to the film business exactly what it did to the music business. There’s more than 50,000 unique music files uploaded per day, per platform , rendering the value of such music virtually nil.
The overlords will see to it that the oligarchs control everything, not some kid in Africa, and it’s the oligarchs who make all the money. The stories, scenes and “actors” will be derivative of the imaginations and hard work of those who sweated though their development and creation.
AI is good for speeding up minutia. As a creative tool, I’m less optimistic, based on my experience as a musician and composer. It would be nice if this alternate vision came to pass, and that somehow it would actually reflect active human imagination and creativity, but I doubt it will. It can only be trained to rearrange that which has come before it, through the previous work and imagination of humans.
Consider that the era of great films were great, not because it was easy, but because it was hard. Writers, filmmakers, actors, composers all struggled to see their visions to fruition. When it becomes so easy a kid with a cracked iPhone could do it, then you’ve stripped away a significant element of what makes the achievement so great.
Just my opinion and like - you know what - we all got one. Thanks for your thoughtful essay though Bret. It does promote deep thought and conversation.
I get where you’re coming from—the music industry is a cautionary tale. A flood of cheap, easy-to-produce tracks did flatten the market and squeeze out middle-class creators. And yes, AI will absolutely cause the same kind of oversaturation in film.
But here’s the key difference: in music, distribution platforms became the choke points—Spotify, Apple, YouTube—and the oligarchs kept most of the value. In AI filmmaking, the distribution bottleneck is already gone. Anyone can upload to a dozen free platforms, and audiences can find you without going through a gatekeeper. That doesn’t guarantee fairness, but it does mean the old monopoly playbook doesn’t work as well.
You’re also right that AI reuses and remixes past human work—that’s true of every artist who ever lived. The question is whether the new combinations are interesting enough to stand on their own. My bet is that the 0.005% who break through won’t just rearrange—they’ll transform. They’ll use AI as a multiplier for their own lived experience, point of view, and style—things no model can generate on its own.
And on “easy vs. hard”: hard work will still matter—it’ll just move from the mechanical (lights, cameras, editing) to the conceptual (story, style, emotional resonance). Making something unforgettable will still take years of obsession; the difference is, more people will get the chance to try.
In short, I think your skepticism is valid for 99% of what’s coming—but the 1% that rises will make film more diverse, global, and surprising than the old system ever allowed.
If this is the future, count me out. This onslaught of AI slop and the fact that few actually really want this stuff, in my opinion, will only make filmmakers with the vision of a Tarantino or Wes Anderson that much more valuable.
I actually think we agree more than we disagree.
The flood of AI content will make the true visionaries more valuable, not less—just as TikTok didn’t make Scorsese irrelevant. The difference is, AI could help the next “Tarantino” or “Wes Anderson” emerge from somewhere far outside the current system.
For most people, yes—it’ll be disposable slop. But for a small percentage, it’ll be the fastest paintbrush they’ve ever had, and the world will get to see their vision without waiting for Hollywood’s green light.
I'm not sure I agree here. Yes, there may be some who use AI to articulate a vision that has some level of artistic merit but it will need to be discoverable and in what portends to be an onslaught of AI-generated trash, that will become supremely challenging. We are already drowning in more content that anyone has any use for.
As well, I feel that AI is both the means and the end. If the AI tech bros have their way, it will be a tool to replace, not supplement, labour. We're going to get more of this, whether we like it or not, but the salient question, as it comes to AI-generated creative work, is whether we actually want any of this stuff. I don't believe that a substantial majority do. I'm not sure it will ultimately matter but it is a hope strong enough at least to cling to.
Well, we certainly agree on one thing, there's a glut of content in all media. And it's only going to get worse.
I will certainly grant you that.
As a member of SAG I ask: What's the fate of actors in this brave new world?
That's a crucial question that gets to the heart of how this transformation will affect real people's livelihoods. As someone in SAG, you're right to be concerned—but I think the future for actors is more nuanced than either "total replacement" or "business as usual."
Here's how I see it playing out:
**The Immediate Reality (Next 2-3 Years)**
AI will first impact background work, crowd scenes, and potentially some commercial/industrial video work. But leading performances, character work, and anything requiring genuine emotional nuance will still need human actors. The technology isn't there yet for truly convincing lead performances across a full narrative.
**The Hybrid Phase (3-7 Years)**
This is where it gets interesting for SAG members. I predict we'll see new categories of work emerge:
- **Performance capture for AI training** - actors lending their likeness, voice, and movement patterns to create AI avatars (with proper compensation and rights protection)
- **AI direction and refinement** - actors working with AI-generated performances to add the human touches that make them believable
- **Hybrid productions** - human actors in key roles, AI filling supporting cast and background
**The New Ecosystem (7+ Years)**
Even in my "billion filmmakers" scenario, here's why human actors won't disappear:
1. **Authenticity Premium** - Just like handmade goods became *more* valuable after mass production, genuine human performance may become a premium offering
2. **Live and Interactive Content** - Streaming, live events, theater, and interactive media will still need real humans
3. **New Roles** - Performance coaching for AI, motion capture specialization, AI avatar management
**What SAG Should Fight For Now:**
- Strict consent and compensation protocols for any AI training on member likenesses
- Residuals for AI-generated content based on member performances
- Clear labeling requirements so audiences know what's AI vs. human
- Retraining programs for emerging hybrid roles
The actors who will thrive are those who lean into what makes them irreplaceably human—authentic emotional connection, improvisation, live interaction with audiences, and the kind of magnetic screen presence that can't be programmed.
What's your sense of how SAG is positioning itself for these changes?
Well, SAG has pushed back against the initial attempts to use people's "body scans" or their voices without recompense. https://www.sagaftra.org/contracts-industry-resources/member-resources/artificial-intelligence.
The thornier issue is the complete replacement of humans. You partially deal with that, although I believe that the employment that will arise, as you describe it, will far from cover the loss of acting employment.
The implementation of older "new" technologies like radio and TV was heavily contested and litigated. However, the issues were much more straightforward and solutions were basically found that balanced all the interests. On the other hand, the "new" technology of streaming has thoroughly failed to uphold the interests of musicians. AI LLM's have trained without payment on the work of artists of all kinds.
Ultimately, consumers will decide the degree to which human creativity is valued above that of computers. Unfortunately, convenience and inertia guide most commerce. Given the power of just a few commercial and tech giants to control these exchanges, it's hard to be optimistic that consumer pressure will keep AI software from maximizing profit at the expense of the artist.
I suppose it resembles the cute little puppy staring at the victrola, just more kaleidoscopic
This will do to the film business exactly what it did to the music business. There’s more than 50,000 unique music files uploaded per day, per platform , rendering the value of such music virtually nil.
The overlords will see to it that the oligarchs control everything, not some kid in Africa, and it’s the oligarchs who make all the money. The stories, scenes and “actors” will be derivative of the imaginations and hard work of those who sweated though their development and creation.
AI is good for speeding up minutia. As a creative tool, I’m less optimistic, based on my experience as a musician and composer. It would be nice if this alternate vision came to pass, and that somehow it would actually reflect active human imagination and creativity, but I doubt it will. It can only be trained to rearrange that which has come before it, through the previous work and imagination of humans.
Consider that the era of great films were great, not because it was easy, but because it was hard. Writers, filmmakers, actors, composers all struggled to see their visions to fruition. When it becomes so easy a kid with a cracked iPhone could do it, then you’ve stripped away a significant element of what makes the achievement so great.
Just my opinion and like - you know what - we all got one. Thanks for your thoughtful essay though Bret. It does promote deep thought and conversation.
I get where you’re coming from—the music industry is a cautionary tale. A flood of cheap, easy-to-produce tracks did flatten the market and squeeze out middle-class creators. And yes, AI will absolutely cause the same kind of oversaturation in film.
But here’s the key difference: in music, distribution platforms became the choke points—Spotify, Apple, YouTube—and the oligarchs kept most of the value. In AI filmmaking, the distribution bottleneck is already gone. Anyone can upload to a dozen free platforms, and audiences can find you without going through a gatekeeper. That doesn’t guarantee fairness, but it does mean the old monopoly playbook doesn’t work as well.
You’re also right that AI reuses and remixes past human work—that’s true of every artist who ever lived. The question is whether the new combinations are interesting enough to stand on their own. My bet is that the 0.005% who break through won’t just rearrange—they’ll transform. They’ll use AI as a multiplier for their own lived experience, point of view, and style—things no model can generate on its own.
And on “easy vs. hard”: hard work will still matter—it’ll just move from the mechanical (lights, cameras, editing) to the conceptual (story, style, emotional resonance). Making something unforgettable will still take years of obsession; the difference is, more people will get the chance to try.
In short, I think your skepticism is valid for 99% of what’s coming—but the 1% that rises will make film more diverse, global, and surprising than the old system ever allowed.
In 2044 an auteur will make the film "Shadows Of forgotten Blade Runners" and that will be the end of all film making as we knew it.
Oh shit, I'm confused.