October 1, 2025 • 25 mins
This week, we explore Hollywood’s open secret — that everyone is using AI, they just aren’t talking about it. Karah sits down with Lila Shapiro, a features writer for New York Magazine, about what Hollywood, itself, thinks of AI. She shares what she’s learned from her extensive interviews with studio executives, directors, writers, vfx artists, actors, and AI entrepreneurs. They discuss whether AI is making creative jobs easier, or threatening to destroy them entirely.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Welcome to tex stuff. This is a story. I'm mos
Voloscen here with Cara Price.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Hi.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
Ah, so I would like to show you something and
just get your reaction, and I promise you it relates
to today's story.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Here we are planet Earth. It's impossible not to appreciate
the sheer grandeur of our world, and yet there remains
one forest unexplored by humans, a forest filled with life,
with creatures living in the burrows of the firms, the
branches of the trees, by the flowing streams, and the
(00:50):
mossy box. I'm David Attenborough's neighbor Dennis, and welcome to
a forest filled with little critters.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
So this is a sort of Pixar style animated film
with a parody of David attenborough narration. The publication date
is April tenth, twenty twenty three. So I am a
little curious why you want me to watch this film,
which is titled Critters with a Z.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Critters what you just saw is the beginning of a
five minute animated movie that was created using open AI's
text to image software back in twenty twenty three. Critters
with a Z was created using doll e. We're obviously
now in twenty twenty five, and open Ai, in conjunction
with a creative agency and film production company, are turning
(01:43):
critters into a feature length film. Not only that it
is set to premiere at can in twenty twenty six,
so they have a drop dead deadline.
Speaker 4 (01:51):
The twenty twenty three short is not terribly engaging.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
In the first forty three seconds, it feels like a
product demo, which of course it is. But what can
we expect from the twenty twenty six version. Will this
be a moment that has Pixar quaking in their boots.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Well, you know, if open Ai and their partners in
this can deliver a feature length hit, the very definition
of studio could change, you know, especially given their goal,
which is to make this movie for less than thirty
million dollars, which is nothing really compared to the hundreds
of millions it can cost a major studio to make
a feature length animated film. And then there's the timeline
(02:27):
that we talked about. You know, open Ai said they
will wrap in nine months, while Pixar would probably take
two to four years to make something similar.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
Assuming the film comes out in twenty twenty six and
it's well received, it can standing.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
Ovation fifteen minutes, and then it.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Drives real box office. I mean, there are a lot
of big assumptions. If all of that happens, and it
happens at a fraction of the cost, at a fraction
of the time the pix I would do it in
this would represent kind of a seismic moment for the
whole of Hollywood.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
It would represent a seismic moment. I think that it's
something that Hollywood definitely should be worried about. But there
also are a lot of humans inside this loop. You know,
OpenAI products like Dolly and Sora will be used for production,
but humans will be the voice actors, and there are
some human artists who are even overseeing the project. I
(03:17):
think most importantly, the screenplay is being written by two
of the writers from the Paddington franchise.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
How is the industry responding, I'm obviously generative AI was
one of the huge issues of the writers strike.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Yeah, and I think there are a lot of people
outside Hollywood that assume that generative AI is no go
in the industry, especially because of how tense the strike's got.
But that's what today's episode is about. I actually got
to talk to Lila Shapiro, who's a features writer for
New York Magazine, and her recent piece was titled Hollywood
already uses generative AI in parenz and is hiding it?
(03:52):
And in this piece she talks about how generative AI
is viewed and used in Hollywood. She actually heard from
studio execs, VFX artists, writers, act directors, and even up
and coming generative AI studios hoping to work within the
studio system.
Speaker 5 (04:06):
The victories of the strikes were largely about like what
people can sort of be forced to do, but people
are being sort of pressed to do it off the
record informally by people lower down the production chain because
everyone is pressed for time, and here are some really
efficient ways to do things. So it's like there are
(04:29):
these guidelines, but it's limited to how much it's going
to really like stave off these greater pressures of needing
to be more efficient, productive, and deal with tightening budgets
across the industry.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
I think it's important to remember that AI already plays
a role in Hollywood, and it has for over a decade.
Lila told me every studio uses some form of AI.
The thing being argued over in Hollywood is like generative
art like purely creative task that can take the artistry
out of a job or threatened to replace jobs entirely.
But there are a million uses for AI that are
(05:05):
just replacing gruntwork. I mean, the writer's strike resulted in
a contract that says scripts can't be generated by AI,
but if a writer wants to use AI, they can
use it.
Speaker 4 (05:15):
And this is how.
Speaker 6 (05:16):
AI is treated in most parts of the industry. Here's
Lila again.
Speaker 5 (05:19):
Studios aren't advertising what they're doing with it because the
public response is so negative and there aren't like tons
of examples that we know about. To give you an example,
like you've looked at what happened with The Brutalist, where
the director came under criticism when it developed that they'd
(05:40):
used generative AI to adjust the audio on some of
the dialogue, you know, And I think it had to
do with adjusting the actors like Hungarian accent, and so
something like that I think is extremely widespread, and it's
almost it's hard to argue with. You're like, well, there's
not something sacred about like adjusting audio levels in a
(06:03):
certain way, and now there's this technology that makes it
much easier and faster. If you look at like specific
little windows. You're going to find everyone is doing it,
and why wouldn't they.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
But here's the thing. The only people motivated to scream
about it from the rooftops are AI companies like Open
Ai or other creative studios that are dedicated to the
use of generative AI, which means that Lila had to
really dig to understand the true role of AI in
Hollywood right now, not to mention the industry's collective opinion
on it.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
So what you're saying is we're going to get an
expose today.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
Well, I started my conversation with Lila asking about a
swanky Hollywood party she attended. There were a ton of
high powered people in attendance, but so many of the
people Lilah interviewed there refused to be named. And that's
because the party was a launch party for a new
generative AI studio. I'll let Lila take it from here.
Speaker 5 (06:55):
So the party was put on by one of these
new AI studios. This one is called Asteria, and it
had described itself as sort of the Pixar of AI.
And part of the reason the studio had some buzz
around it was that it was run partly by the
(07:19):
actress and showrunner and writer Natasha Leone who sort of
this like Indie World Darling. And the other component of
it is that this studio is sort of positioning themselves
as the ethical AI studio in that they are training
their model, they say, only on licensed material. So there's
(07:41):
this sense that a lot of artists feel, rightly so
that like their work is being scraped, they're not being compensated,
and now they're being replaced by these models that can
do what they did much more efficiently. So Asteria is
trying to sort of get around that problem by saying
that they're licensing all their footage and they're building a
(08:03):
model with a group of engineers who kind of come
out of the AI scene in the Silicon Valley. This
party that I went to was the launch party for
their model, and it's in this big room and there
are these images that are created by their model projected
across the walls, trippy things of like a cloud turning
(08:26):
into a man and the man falling into the clouds
and turning back into them, or like undulating fields and
galloping horses.
Speaker 6 (08:33):
Everything is very dolliesque.
Speaker 5 (08:35):
Yes, there was no presentation or anything, so you don't
really know how they made it or what the process
was of producing those moving images. It was very like scene.
They weren't leading with an explanation of sort of what
they were and what they were about and how they
were doing these things.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
There was sort of a weird thing that you described
in your article that there were a lot of people
who didn't want to give their names.
Speaker 6 (09:01):
What was that about, right?
Speaker 5 (09:05):
I think that people still feel that there is a
kind of stigma like associated with using generative AI. When
the article came out, a lot of people were really
upset with Natasha because they're like, this is a betrayal.
So people would tell me, like, I think this is
going to like alienate me from my friends and colleagues
(09:26):
if they know that I'm here and then I'm interested
and I'm looking into it. Even though it's becoming increasingly
widespread and it's happening everywhere, people still don't like it.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
I understand that there's still a stigma around the use
of AI and supporting companies that use AI, even though
every company now uses AI.
Speaker 5 (09:46):
Yeah, a lot of what's being done with generative AI
is replacing what CGI was, and it's not like there's
something that's sacred about CGI or like rotoscopic where you're
like very painstakingly cutting out a person's image and moving
(10:06):
them into another background. That's not like a pleasurable activity.
It's not a creative activity. It's like a roat task
that has to be done over and over and over
and over and over again. If you have a way
to do that where it happens much faster, saving you
like days or weeks of time and looks the same essentially,
(10:30):
then like why wouldn't you want to do that? A
lot of the people who are most interested in experimenting
with it are like CGI VFX people because they're like
tech people who are interested in emerging technologies, and their
work itself is part was once in an emerging technology,
so it's not like they're like dead set against it,
but it does have the effect of no matter what
(10:52):
way you sort of slice it, visual effects is now
going to be much faster, which means from like a
labor perspective, it takes less people to do it, and
it takes those people a shorter amount of time. And
that even leaves aside the ethical issue of is this
based on stolen work? Which hysteria is trying to get
around with their system.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
So one of the studios you spoke to is Runway.
Can you tell me a little bit more about them,
and like what do they do exactly.
Speaker 5 (11:23):
Runway is this company that they've designed a model that
generates video and they also, you know, have the ambitions
to become a studio themselves. And they've now produced a
pilot and they run these film festivals that are AI
film festivals. So they're really embedded in Hollywood at this point,
(11:47):
and they've gotten a lot further there than the big
tech companies have around. When I started reporting, I think
the picture had been big tech doesn't know how to
operate in Hollywood, whereas I think Runway came in and
started having meetings, and at this point they're meeting with
(12:09):
every studio. They had the first publicly announced partnership with
the studio, which was Lionsgate. But they have a model
which can do incredible special effects. When I was talking
to the Lionsgate executive and other filmmakers who are working
with Runway, they talked a lot about how, say you
(12:32):
want to have a shot of ten thousand soldiers in
the mountains during a snowstorm. To really shoot it, they'd
have to go to the Himalayas, and it would take
three days and cost many millions of dollars. And then
using Runway, they can just create that for ten thousand dollars.
And it can also do like much more insignificant things
(12:56):
like say you have a shot, but you want an
extra foot of image around every part of the scene.
We can do that. So it can do a lot
of things with varying degrees of excellence, all of which
are much faster than alternative ways of doing those things.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
In your piece, there was one paragraph that really struck me.
It's a paraphrase of something a lions Gate exact told you.
With a library as large as lions Gates, they could
use Runway to repackage and resell what the studio already owned.
You know, I already feel like we're in.
Speaker 6 (13:33):
The We have sequelitis.
Speaker 3 (13:35):
Right now in Hollywood, and I think people who love movies,
like myself are often lamenting the fact that everything seems
to be something that already existed. I guess my question
for you is, do you feel like we are increasingly
just pushing into repackaged, repurpose content territory that is Hollywood
(13:56):
or is that lament a little bit pollyannish.
Speaker 5 (14:00):
Like, of course you hear something like that and it's like,
that's depressing. Now, I'd say the alternate argument to that,
which I heard a lot from the people at Hysteria,
certainly Natasha Leone, is that sure, that's one possibility. Another
possibility is that this technology levels the playing field right,
(14:21):
fresh voices, new people who would otherwise be unable to
get a foothold in Hollywood will be in a position
to make films. And so there are certainly people who
are arguing that this can lead to a new golden
era of independent filmmaking. I don't think that's impossible, but
(14:44):
the worst case scenario doesn't seem that improbable either, Which
is what which is that like it'll just be all
slop from here on out. The slop will just get
more and more and more slop, Like because we're so
focused in like chure out content and if someone can
just click a button and star in like seven seasons
(15:07):
of Game of Throne knockoff, they're going to want to
do that. What are the incentives for making quality content?
But at the same time, like, I don't think it's
an all or nothing. I'm sure it'll just continue to
be kind of both.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
It's a matter of if people who care about movies
and the art form of movies will invite these kinds
of movies into their lives or worlds.
Speaker 5 (15:35):
Yeah. One thing I thought was really interesting in response
to the piece is at the end of the piece,
Natasha talks about how her neighbor was David Lynch before
he died, and she related to me like this conversation
she had with him about asking him his thoughts, and
his response was to pick up a pencil and say
this is AI, basically like, it's a tool. What matters
(15:59):
is how you use it. And then all these people
online were like, how dare she drag David Lynch's name
through the mud like this? He would never have used AI,
But I thought it was actually very probable that he
would have said that because he was a constantly evolving
filmmaker who did use many tools that were at the
(16:19):
time that he began using them controversial and something that
others were saying would lead to the death of art
and the death of filmmaking. So I do think it's
true that it's just a tool and that like, of course,
people will make interesting things with it, and there are
interesting artists right now who are experimenting with it, and
(16:40):
we haven't seen their work yet, but I think once
those projects start to come out, there will be a
shift in attitude. I think the Netflix. Ted Surrando said this,
like he thinks that it's not just going to make
movies much cheaper to make, but also ten percent better,
and that the reason it would make movies ten percent
(17:00):
better is because like, oh, we'll be more freed up
to spend more time on the creativity. And to me,
it's like, well, that's certainly not an inevitable outcome. It
could easily be just that it's faster and now you're
expected to just churn out more and more and more
and more, and you're never giving that time back to
(17:20):
invest in the creativity.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
After the break, Will AI ever completely replace human filmmakers?
Speaker 7 (17:34):
Stay with us?
Speaker 3 (17:51):
I want to pivot a little bit here to the
thing that people are focused on most in any conversation
about AI, which is job. It's no secret that creative
workers in Hollywood are struggling. Whether it be writers, actors,
I don't know. It seems like there's a lot on
the line right now. What were people saying to you
(18:14):
in your piece, and in your reporting about the future
of the quote unquote Hollywood workforce.
Speaker 5 (18:21):
Yeah, I mean, I think there's no question that there
has already been job loss and that there will probably
be more job loss. It's very hard, though, to really
pin down the reasons why. When I was talking to
unions in Hollywood for the piece, no one was sort
of able or willing to say, like, our members lost
(18:41):
to this many jobs because of AI. There's also problems
like the box office is down and budgets are tighter.
But all of that said, I think there are some
specific areas where it's pretty clear that like AI can
do as good job as a person, which is not
(19:01):
everywhere by any means. But for example, the junior studio executive,
a big part of that person's job was to write
script analyzes, and that's something that generative AI can do
a really good job of and it's not really a
creative enterprise exactly. When the studio executive talked to me
about it, that was how she came up writing script
(19:24):
summaries for her bosses, and now she doesn't need an
assistant to do that for her. But at the same
time she was like, but I am worried about what
is the next generation of studio executives. How are they
going to learn when this core function of their job
is no longer necessary? And so who am I training now?
(19:46):
No one.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
Is it fair to fear that AI will take over
filmmaking altogether.
Speaker 5 (19:54):
I think that's a reasonable thing to be somewhat afraid of,
although I do think that it's a pretty complicated question actually,
because do I think that people will lose the urge
to create art? No, But it could be that we
reach a time where there's no economic incentive to do
(20:16):
it because most people spend their time scrolling TikTok, and
that there's no more like eyeballs that want to engage
in serious art. And I mean that's kind of true
for not just Hollywood, but also publishing, writing, podcasting, everything.
(20:37):
Is there going to be money to keep making original work?
But I don't think that we're in a place where
AI could produce a good movie without human involvement. And
I don't really know that we will ever be in
a place where AI could make a good movie without
human involvement. And core feature of AI is that it
has no taste. I think sometimes when you have these
(21:00):
conversations with people who are like thinking about this vision
where like AI is replacing everything. It's predicated on the
idea that there's going to continue to be like an
exponential leap forward and what it can do. And like,
right now, like AI can't write a good script, for instance,
and nobody thinks it can. I mean, that's part of
(21:21):
why the writer's victory during the strikes wasn't that meaningful,
because right now it really can't create a.
Speaker 6 (21:31):
Good script, but it could in the future.
Speaker 5 (21:34):
Maybe it seems like a real question mark. Meaningful artwork
has to reflect human choice. So you can imagine someone
using chat GBT as part of their writing process, but
it would still have to be led by a person.
Because I don't think that AI can produce meaningful It
(21:58):
doesn't have any motivation, It doesn't have any desire to
express anything.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
Right, And that's why taste seems to be the final
frontier that would need to be entirely disrupted, which is
from where I stand, seemingly impossible.
Speaker 5 (22:12):
Yeah, it's just like a different order of business entirely.
A lot of people that I talk to in AI
don't think that that is going to happen. They more
think that it will in the realm of Hollywood, say,
get better and better and better at doing these specific
technical functions, which is so different than give me seven
(22:35):
seasons of whatever TV show.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
Did you get a sense at all in reporting this
that of like how lay people feel about more and
more AI content coming out of Hollywood?
Speaker 5 (22:47):
I mean most people, I don't think feel great about it.
There is, like, I think, a shift since the writer strikes,
of just more and more acceptance, partly also because chat
GPT is so widely used now and so more and
more people are having some form of interaction with it
and being like this can be helpful. Oh, I could
(23:07):
do this thing, that would be helpful. So I think
a big message right now is like, if you want
to be employed, then you have to use AI. And
that's true for like every industry right now, not just Hollywood.
It's like, if you take away the environmental problems, if
you take away the theft of the world's artwork and
(23:27):
set those issues aside for a second.
Speaker 6 (23:30):
Those two small factors, those.
Speaker 5 (23:32):
Two small factors, then I do think that it is
a tool, and there's nothing inherently frightening about it, and
I think there are certain areas where it's just here
to stay. So it's not that useful to be like
that's bad, because it's just the nature of the world
right now. So I think some of the reactions to
(23:55):
it don't make a ton of sense. Like I don't
think that using AI currently curdles the work, because I
think there's tons of ways to use it that the
viewer will never even be aware of. And I think
that there is an increasing number of people lower down
in the industry who come to their producers and are like,
(24:15):
here's a good solution to this problem we've been dealing with.
Should we try it? And I think that is something
that I've heard was increasingly common.
Speaker 6 (24:25):
Well, thank you so much, Llila, this was a great conversation.
Speaker 5 (24:28):
Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 7 (24:53):
For tect stuff.
Speaker 4 (24:54):
I'm Cara Price and I'm most Valocian.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
This episode was produced by Eliza Dennis Tyler Hill and
Melissa Slaughter. It was executive produced by me Oswa Lashin
and Kate Osborne for Kaleidoscope and Katrina Norvel for iHeart Podcasts.
Jack Insley mixed this episode and Kyle Murdoch wrote our
theme song.
Speaker 4 (25:10):
Join us on Friday for the Week in Tech.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
Karen and I will run through the tech headlines you
may have missed, and please do rate and review the
show wherever you listen to your podcasts, and reach out
to us at tech Stuff podcast at gmail dot com.
Welcome to tex stuff. This is a story. I'm mos
Voloscen here with Cara Price.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Hi.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
Ah, so I would like to show you something and
just get your reaction, and I promise you it relates
to today's story.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Here we are planet Earth. It's impossible not to appreciate
the sheer grandeur of our world, and yet there remains
one forest unexplored by humans, a forest filled with life,
with creatures living in the burrows of the firms, the
branches of the trees, by the flowing streams, and the
(00:50):
mossy box. I'm David Attenborough's neighbor Dennis, and welcome to
a forest filled with little critters.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
So this is a sort of Pixar style animated film
with a parody of David attenborough narration. The publication date
is April tenth, twenty twenty three. So I am a
little curious why you want me to watch this film,
which is titled Critters with a Z.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Critters what you just saw is the beginning of a
five minute animated movie that was created using open AI's
text to image software back in twenty twenty three. Critters
with a Z was created using doll e. We're obviously
now in twenty twenty five, and open Ai, in conjunction
with a creative agency and film production company, are turning
(01:43):
critters into a feature length film. Not only that it
is set to premiere at can in twenty twenty six,
so they have a drop dead deadline.
Speaker 4 (01:51):
The twenty twenty three short is not terribly engaging.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
In the first forty three seconds, it feels like a
product demo, which of course it is. But what can
we expect from the twenty twenty six version. Will this
be a moment that has Pixar quaking in their boots.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Well, you know, if open Ai and their partners in
this can deliver a feature length hit, the very definition
of studio could change, you know, especially given their goal,
which is to make this movie for less than thirty
million dollars, which is nothing really compared to the hundreds
of millions it can cost a major studio to make
a feature length animated film. And then there's the timeline
(02:27):
that we talked about. You know, open Ai said they
will wrap in nine months, while Pixar would probably take
two to four years to make something similar.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
Assuming the film comes out in twenty twenty six and
it's well received, it can standing.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
Ovation fifteen minutes, and then it.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Drives real box office. I mean, there are a lot
of big assumptions. If all of that happens, and it
happens at a fraction of the cost, at a fraction
of the time the pix I would do it in
this would represent kind of a seismic moment for the
whole of Hollywood.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
It would represent a seismic moment. I think that it's
something that Hollywood definitely should be worried about. But there
also are a lot of humans inside this loop. You know,
OpenAI products like Dolly and Sora will be used for production,
but humans will be the voice actors, and there are
some human artists who are even overseeing the project. I
(03:17):
think most importantly, the screenplay is being written by two
of the writers from the Paddington franchise.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
How is the industry responding, I'm obviously generative AI was
one of the huge issues of the writers strike.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Yeah, and I think there are a lot of people
outside Hollywood that assume that generative AI is no go
in the industry, especially because of how tense the strike's got.
But that's what today's episode is about. I actually got
to talk to Lila Shapiro, who's a features writer for
New York Magazine, and her recent piece was titled Hollywood
already uses generative AI in parenz and is hiding it?
(03:52):
And in this piece she talks about how generative AI
is viewed and used in Hollywood. She actually heard from
studio execs, VFX artists, writers, act directors, and even up
and coming generative AI studios hoping to work within the
studio system.
Speaker 5 (04:06):
The victories of the strikes were largely about like what
people can sort of be forced to do, but people
are being sort of pressed to do it off the
record informally by people lower down the production chain because
everyone is pressed for time, and here are some really
efficient ways to do things. So it's like there are
(04:29):
these guidelines, but it's limited to how much it's going
to really like stave off these greater pressures of needing
to be more efficient, productive, and deal with tightening budgets
across the industry.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
I think it's important to remember that AI already plays
a role in Hollywood, and it has for over a decade.
Lila told me every studio uses some form of AI.
The thing being argued over in Hollywood is like generative
art like purely creative task that can take the artistry
out of a job or threatened to replace jobs entirely.
But there are a million uses for AI that are
(05:05):
just replacing gruntwork. I mean, the writer's strike resulted in
a contract that says scripts can't be generated by AI,
but if a writer wants to use AI, they can
use it.
Speaker 4 (05:15):
And this is how.
Speaker 6 (05:16):
AI is treated in most parts of the industry. Here's
Lila again.
Speaker 5 (05:19):
Studios aren't advertising what they're doing with it because the
public response is so negative and there aren't like tons
of examples that we know about. To give you an example,
like you've looked at what happened with The Brutalist, where
the director came under criticism when it developed that they'd
(05:40):
used generative AI to adjust the audio on some of
the dialogue, you know, And I think it had to
do with adjusting the actors like Hungarian accent, and so
something like that I think is extremely widespread, and it's
almost it's hard to argue with. You're like, well, there's
not something sacred about like adjusting audio levels in a
(06:03):
certain way, and now there's this technology that makes it
much easier and faster. If you look at like specific
little windows. You're going to find everyone is doing it,
and why wouldn't they.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
But here's the thing. The only people motivated to scream
about it from the rooftops are AI companies like Open
Ai or other creative studios that are dedicated to the
use of generative AI, which means that Lila had to
really dig to understand the true role of AI in
Hollywood right now, not to mention the industry's collective opinion
on it.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
So what you're saying is we're going to get an
expose today.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
Well, I started my conversation with Lila asking about a
swanky Hollywood party she attended. There were a ton of
high powered people in attendance, but so many of the
people Lilah interviewed there refused to be named. And that's
because the party was a launch party for a new
generative AI studio. I'll let Lila take it from here.
Speaker 5 (06:55):
So the party was put on by one of these
new AI studios. This one is called Asteria, and it
had described itself as sort of the Pixar of AI.
And part of the reason the studio had some buzz
around it was that it was run partly by the
(07:19):
actress and showrunner and writer Natasha Leone who sort of
this like Indie World Darling. And the other component of
it is that this studio is sort of positioning themselves
as the ethical AI studio in that they are training
their model, they say, only on licensed material. So there's
(07:41):
this sense that a lot of artists feel, rightly so
that like their work is being scraped, they're not being compensated,
and now they're being replaced by these models that can
do what they did much more efficiently. So Asteria is
trying to sort of get around that problem by saying
that they're licensing all their footage and they're building a
(08:03):
model with a group of engineers who kind of come
out of the AI scene in the Silicon Valley. This
party that I went to was the launch party for
their model, and it's in this big room and there
are these images that are created by their model projected
across the walls, trippy things of like a cloud turning
(08:26):
into a man and the man falling into the clouds
and turning back into them, or like undulating fields and
galloping horses.
Speaker 6 (08:33):
Everything is very dolliesque.
Speaker 5 (08:35):
Yes, there was no presentation or anything, so you don't
really know how they made it or what the process
was of producing those moving images. It was very like scene.
They weren't leading with an explanation of sort of what
they were and what they were about and how they
were doing these things.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
There was sort of a weird thing that you described
in your article that there were a lot of people
who didn't want to give their names.
Speaker 6 (09:01):
What was that about, right?
Speaker 5 (09:05):
I think that people still feel that there is a
kind of stigma like associated with using generative AI. When
the article came out, a lot of people were really
upset with Natasha because they're like, this is a betrayal.
So people would tell me, like, I think this is
going to like alienate me from my friends and colleagues
(09:26):
if they know that I'm here and then I'm interested
and I'm looking into it. Even though it's becoming increasingly
widespread and it's happening everywhere, people still don't like it.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
I understand that there's still a stigma around the use
of AI and supporting companies that use AI, even though
every company now uses AI.
Speaker 5 (09:46):
Yeah, a lot of what's being done with generative AI
is replacing what CGI was, and it's not like there's
something that's sacred about CGI or like rotoscopic where you're
like very painstakingly cutting out a person's image and moving
(10:06):
them into another background. That's not like a pleasurable activity.
It's not a creative activity. It's like a roat task
that has to be done over and over and over
and over and over again. If you have a way
to do that where it happens much faster, saving you
like days or weeks of time and looks the same essentially,
(10:30):
then like why wouldn't you want to do that? A
lot of the people who are most interested in experimenting
with it are like CGI VFX people because they're like
tech people who are interested in emerging technologies, and their
work itself is part was once in an emerging technology,
so it's not like they're like dead set against it,
but it does have the effect of no matter what
(10:52):
way you sort of slice it, visual effects is now
going to be much faster, which means from like a
labor perspective, it takes less people to do it, and
it takes those people a shorter amount of time. And
that even leaves aside the ethical issue of is this
based on stolen work? Which hysteria is trying to get
around with their system.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
So one of the studios you spoke to is Runway.
Can you tell me a little bit more about them,
and like what do they do exactly.
Speaker 5 (11:23):
Runway is this company that they've designed a model that
generates video and they also, you know, have the ambitions
to become a studio themselves. And they've now produced a
pilot and they run these film festivals that are AI
film festivals. So they're really embedded in Hollywood at this point,
(11:47):
and they've gotten a lot further there than the big
tech companies have around. When I started reporting, I think
the picture had been big tech doesn't know how to
operate in Hollywood, whereas I think Runway came in and
started having meetings, and at this point they're meeting with
(12:09):
every studio. They had the first publicly announced partnership with
the studio, which was Lionsgate. But they have a model
which can do incredible special effects. When I was talking
to the Lionsgate executive and other filmmakers who are working
with Runway, they talked a lot about how, say you
(12:32):
want to have a shot of ten thousand soldiers in
the mountains during a snowstorm. To really shoot it, they'd
have to go to the Himalayas, and it would take
three days and cost many millions of dollars. And then
using Runway, they can just create that for ten thousand dollars.
And it can also do like much more insignificant things
(12:56):
like say you have a shot, but you want an
extra foot of image around every part of the scene.
We can do that. So it can do a lot
of things with varying degrees of excellence, all of which
are much faster than alternative ways of doing those things.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
In your piece, there was one paragraph that really struck me.
It's a paraphrase of something a lions Gate exact told you.
With a library as large as lions Gates, they could
use Runway to repackage and resell what the studio already owned.
You know, I already feel like we're in.
Speaker 6 (13:33):
The We have sequelitis.
Speaker 3 (13:35):
Right now in Hollywood, and I think people who love movies,
like myself are often lamenting the fact that everything seems
to be something that already existed. I guess my question
for you is, do you feel like we are increasingly
just pushing into repackaged, repurpose content territory that is Hollywood
(13:56):
or is that lament a little bit pollyannish.
Speaker 5 (14:00):
Like, of course you hear something like that and it's like,
that's depressing. Now, I'd say the alternate argument to that,
which I heard a lot from the people at Hysteria,
certainly Natasha Leone, is that sure, that's one possibility. Another
possibility is that this technology levels the playing field right,
(14:21):
fresh voices, new people who would otherwise be unable to
get a foothold in Hollywood will be in a position
to make films. And so there are certainly people who
are arguing that this can lead to a new golden
era of independent filmmaking. I don't think that's impossible, but
(14:44):
the worst case scenario doesn't seem that improbable either, Which
is what which is that like it'll just be all
slop from here on out. The slop will just get
more and more and more slop, Like because we're so
focused in like chure out content and if someone can
just click a button and star in like seven seasons
(15:07):
of Game of Throne knockoff, they're going to want to
do that. What are the incentives for making quality content?
But at the same time, like, I don't think it's
an all or nothing. I'm sure it'll just continue to
be kind of both.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
It's a matter of if people who care about movies
and the art form of movies will invite these kinds
of movies into their lives or worlds.
Speaker 5 (15:35):
Yeah. One thing I thought was really interesting in response
to the piece is at the end of the piece,
Natasha talks about how her neighbor was David Lynch before
he died, and she related to me like this conversation
she had with him about asking him his thoughts, and
his response was to pick up a pencil and say
this is AI, basically like, it's a tool. What matters
(15:59):
is how you use it. And then all these people
online were like, how dare she drag David Lynch's name
through the mud like this? He would never have used AI,
But I thought it was actually very probable that he
would have said that because he was a constantly evolving
filmmaker who did use many tools that were at the
(16:19):
time that he began using them controversial and something that
others were saying would lead to the death of art
and the death of filmmaking. So I do think it's
true that it's just a tool and that like, of course,
people will make interesting things with it, and there are
interesting artists right now who are experimenting with it, and
(16:40):
we haven't seen their work yet, but I think once
those projects start to come out, there will be a
shift in attitude. I think the Netflix. Ted Surrando said this,
like he thinks that it's not just going to make
movies much cheaper to make, but also ten percent better,
and that the reason it would make movies ten percent
(17:00):
better is because like, oh, we'll be more freed up
to spend more time on the creativity. And to me,
it's like, well, that's certainly not an inevitable outcome. It
could easily be just that it's faster and now you're
expected to just churn out more and more and more
and more, and you're never giving that time back to
(17:20):
invest in the creativity.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
After the break, Will AI ever completely replace human filmmakers?
Speaker 7 (17:34):
Stay with us?
Speaker 3 (17:51):
I want to pivot a little bit here to the
thing that people are focused on most in any conversation
about AI, which is job. It's no secret that creative
workers in Hollywood are struggling. Whether it be writers, actors,
I don't know. It seems like there's a lot on
the line right now. What were people saying to you
(18:14):
in your piece, and in your reporting about the future
of the quote unquote Hollywood workforce.
Speaker 5 (18:21):
Yeah, I mean, I think there's no question that there
has already been job loss and that there will probably
be more job loss. It's very hard, though, to really
pin down the reasons why. When I was talking to
unions in Hollywood for the piece, no one was sort
of able or willing to say, like, our members lost
(18:41):
to this many jobs because of AI. There's also problems
like the box office is down and budgets are tighter.
But all of that said, I think there are some
specific areas where it's pretty clear that like AI can
do as good job as a person, which is not
(19:01):
everywhere by any means. But for example, the junior studio executive,
a big part of that person's job was to write
script analyzes, and that's something that generative AI can do
a really good job of and it's not really a
creative enterprise exactly. When the studio executive talked to me
about it, that was how she came up writing script
(19:24):
summaries for her bosses, and now she doesn't need an
assistant to do that for her. But at the same
time she was like, but I am worried about what
is the next generation of studio executives. How are they
going to learn when this core function of their job
is no longer necessary? And so who am I training now?
(19:46):
No one.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
Is it fair to fear that AI will take over
filmmaking altogether.
Speaker 5 (19:54):
I think that's a reasonable thing to be somewhat afraid of,
although I do think that it's a pretty complicated question actually,
because do I think that people will lose the urge
to create art? No, But it could be that we
reach a time where there's no economic incentive to do
(20:16):
it because most people spend their time scrolling TikTok, and
that there's no more like eyeballs that want to engage
in serious art. And I mean that's kind of true
for not just Hollywood, but also publishing, writing, podcasting, everything.
(20:37):
Is there going to be money to keep making original work?
But I don't think that we're in a place where
AI could produce a good movie without human involvement. And
I don't really know that we will ever be in
a place where AI could make a good movie without
human involvement. And core feature of AI is that it
has no taste. I think sometimes when you have these
(21:00):
conversations with people who are like thinking about this vision
where like AI is replacing everything. It's predicated on the
idea that there's going to continue to be like an
exponential leap forward and what it can do. And like,
right now, like AI can't write a good script, for instance,
and nobody thinks it can. I mean, that's part of
(21:21):
why the writer's victory during the strikes wasn't that meaningful,
because right now it really can't create a.
Speaker 6 (21:31):
Good script, but it could in the future.
Speaker 5 (21:34):
Maybe it seems like a real question mark. Meaningful artwork
has to reflect human choice. So you can imagine someone
using chat GBT as part of their writing process, but
it would still have to be led by a person.
Because I don't think that AI can produce meaningful It
(21:58):
doesn't have any motivation, It doesn't have any desire to
express anything.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
Right, And that's why taste seems to be the final
frontier that would need to be entirely disrupted, which is
from where I stand, seemingly impossible.
Speaker 5 (22:12):
Yeah, it's just like a different order of business entirely.
A lot of people that I talk to in AI
don't think that that is going to happen. They more
think that it will in the realm of Hollywood, say,
get better and better and better at doing these specific
technical functions, which is so different than give me seven
(22:35):
seasons of whatever TV show.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
Did you get a sense at all in reporting this
that of like how lay people feel about more and
more AI content coming out of Hollywood?
Speaker 5 (22:47):
I mean most people, I don't think feel great about it.
There is, like, I think, a shift since the writer strikes,
of just more and more acceptance, partly also because chat
GPT is so widely used now and so more and
more people are having some form of interaction with it
and being like this can be helpful. Oh, I could
(23:07):
do this thing, that would be helpful. So I think
a big message right now is like, if you want
to be employed, then you have to use AI. And
that's true for like every industry right now, not just Hollywood.
It's like, if you take away the environmental problems, if
you take away the theft of the world's artwork and
(23:27):
set those issues aside for a second.
Speaker 6 (23:30):
Those two small factors, those.
Speaker 5 (23:32):
Two small factors, then I do think that it is
a tool, and there's nothing inherently frightening about it, and
I think there are certain areas where it's just here
to stay. So it's not that useful to be like
that's bad, because it's just the nature of the world
right now. So I think some of the reactions to
(23:55):
it don't make a ton of sense. Like I don't
think that using AI currently curdles the work, because I
think there's tons of ways to use it that the
viewer will never even be aware of. And I think
that there is an increasing number of people lower down
in the industry who come to their producers and are like,
(24:15):
here's a good solution to this problem we've been dealing with.
Should we try it? And I think that is something
that I've heard was increasingly common.
Speaker 6 (24:25):
Well, thank you so much, Llila, this was a great conversation.
Speaker 5 (24:28):
Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 7 (24:53):
For tect stuff.
Speaker 4 (24:54):
I'm Cara Price and I'm most Valocian.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
This episode was produced by Eliza Dennis Tyler Hill and
Melissa Slaughter. It was executive produced by me Oswa Lashin
and Kate Osborne for Kaleidoscope and Katrina Norvel for iHeart Podcasts.
Jack Insley mixed this episode and Kyle Murdoch wrote our
theme song.
Speaker 4 (25:10):
Join us on Friday for the Week in Tech.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
Karen and I will run through the tech headlines you
may have missed, and please do rate and review the
show wherever you listen to your podcasts, and reach out
to us at tech Stuff podcast at gmail dot com.
TechStuff News
Hosts And Creators
Oz Woloshyn
Karah Preiss
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.