Opinion: The pros and cons of using AI in films and television

To say that artificial intelligence made an explosive entrance this year would be an understatement. While AI has been around for some time, it has not become as predominant until now. It has been used in the film/TV industry for the past decade, either being involved in the writing process or being used for CGI “deepfake” effects (like in Rogue One and Furious 7).

Now, there are aspects of AI usage that are entirely useful, but it has the potential to derail how content is made.

However, there are a handful of negative aspects that come with using AI in produced content. For one, it marks the beginning of the end for the gift of human craftsmanship. A team of writers for a single television episode or movie installment is crucial, especially when handling different ideas and requiring feedback from others.

Also, it's just handy to have extra helping hands. But what good is feedback when you can just use a machine algorithm to “review” your project? A.I. uses algorithms to recognize patterns in existing stories to formulate one of its own, but that doesn’t include interesting plot twists or spontaneous character decisions, instead relying more on predictability and “unintelligent” answers.

Unfortunately, movie studios have also become increasingly greedy in the past decade, focusing more on the dollar sign than the quality of the product (which is why “less is more” has gone out of fashion).

If executives and producers recognize that they do not have to pay a whole team of writers in addition to not paying a machine, then the human element will be further “terminated” so to speak. Human teamwork and collaboration will be replaced with a single person and a single AI.

If this is the case, prepare for more formulaic/generic projects in the coming future.

Secondly, AI has the potential of literally “stealing one’s identity.” One of the criticisms from those participating in the strikes was the use of AI for computer-generated extras in films and television products. Essentially, extras are scanned into a computer system and can be placed in any scene at any time between now and the future (and executives will also use this as an excuse not to pay for extras).

Imagine yourself being scanned for what you think could be the next "Transformers" movie, but your digital duplicate is then used again 50 years later in the background for “Star Wars Episode 69."

Not only is this kind of gimmicky (not everybody can be a Stan Lee or Alfred Hitchcock cameo) but it also adds a level of fakery to know that actual crowds of people are not there onscreen. After so many years, recognizing the same digital extra over and over would prove to be distracting.

The Film Theorists, a YouTube channel that deconstructs movies, television and video games, released a video a year or two ago theorizing that the Walt Disney Company is creating a database itself of “digital actors” that they can “load” for any project they choose. This seems ludicrous at first, but now might turn into an actual scary situation.

Also, remember that AI has been used before for facial recognition purposes. If you are scanned into a system, artificial intelligence will recognize the ins and outs of your bodily features and can use you for projects, videos, or events that you were not a part of.

It is not only an ethical problem, but it could also become a legal issue as well. Imagine if the next president of the United States got his own scan just for the heck of it, and an AI made a video of him making a speech to a group of people.

But here is the catch: the president never made that speech, and the crowd of people was a mix of the president’s staff and “digital extras.” How would the White House explain that incident without falling into a potential domestic or international controversy?

Sure, AI seemed useful for recreating a younger Luke Skywalker for "The Mandalorian" and "The Book of Boba Fett," but mankind must understand its limitations, and recognize how much is too much. After all, did the "Mission: Impossible" movie that was released this summer not highlight the potential dangers of misusing AI to the point of infringing the freedoms of people from around the globe?

Now, even though this article sounds pessimistic in nature, there is a positive aspect of AI for content. At this point, the only good thing AI can do right now is analyze the data (such as box office revenue and audience reviews) to compile a list of recommendations on how studios can improve their content output.

There are outlets on the internet that certain studios would rather ignore, but it is still helpful user feedback, nonetheless. It is unfortunate that executives at these studios (like Disney) do not understand why some of their latest content does not work and they tend to look at the declining box office sales the wrong way.

The poor reception of "Lightyear" doesn’t mean that "Toy Story 5" should be greenlit as a result. Disney simply made a film that nobody wanted to see, and let’s face it, the "Toy Story" series already ended...twice. It is just a shame that a computer program could figure that out whilst human executives could not.

Overall, this was not meant to bash AI itself but it was intended to send a grim (but real) warning on what could happen to the media industries if this goes unhinged. There are some genuine ethical dilemmas and concerns for the decline of human creativity and use of imagination. If this is the route Hollywood chooses to go, then maybe originality and creativity are about to meet their maker. Thankfully, we have over 120 years worth of film made with genuine human craftsmanship.

Logan M. Sharp is a fourth-year studying film production. To contact him, please email lxs5590@psu.edu.