April 3, 2026 • 48 mins
AI is no longer something on the horizon. It’s already here, quietly reshaping how films are developed, produced, edited, and even distributed. But with that power comes critical questions—about ethics, authorship, and the future of creative work itself. In this episode, we’re not just talking about what AI can do—we’re exploring what it should do, and how filmmakers can stay aligned with their creative voice while navigating a rapidly evolving industry.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_02 (01:17):
AI is already changing how films are written,
edited, and even imagined.
But what does that mean for yourcreative voice, your ownership,
and your future as a filmmaker?
Stay tuned.
SPEAKER_01 (01:34):
Hello, I'm Claire Papan, co-producer with Carol
Dean, president of From theHeart Productions.
Today on the Art of FilmFunding, we're stepping into one
of the most important andcomplex conversations facing
filmmakers today (01:49):
artificial intelligence.
AI is no longer something on thehorizon.
It's already here, quietlyreshaping how films are
developed, produced, edited, andeven distributed.
But with that power comescritical questions about ethics,
(02:12):
authorship, and the future ofcreative work itself.
Our guest today, Basil Moore,brings a rare perspective to
this conversation.
He's a film producer, futurist,and international co-production
strategist whose work bridgesemerging technology and
(02:34):
storytelling.
He's collaborated with majormedia companies, including
Universal Music, TwentiethCentury Fox, and ABC Disney.
And he focuses on how new tools,especially AI, can be integrated
responsibly into the filmmakingprocess.
(02:56):
In this episode, we're not justtalking about what AI can do,
we're exploring what it shoulddo and how filmmakers can stay
aligned with their creativevoice while navigating a rapidly
evolving industry.
And Carol, I know you want todive into this conversation with
(03:18):
Basil, and I'm going to turn itright over to you now.
SPEAKER_02 (03:21):
Oh, thank you, Claire.
Yes, I'm excited, Basil.
We're honored to have you shareyour ideas.
SPEAKER_00 (03:28):
Thank you so much.
SPEAKER_02 (03:30):
Okay, so let's get started.
What does ethical AI actuallymean in the context of
filmmaking?
SPEAKER_00 (03:40):
Thank you, uh, Claire and Carol, for having me
on the show.
Um, first, um, it is animportant subject to my heart,
the um filmmaking and the wordethics combined together in one
sentence.
And the reason being is becauseethical AI and filmmaking means
that our tools must remain inservice of human conscience.
(04:06):
It asks whether we are usingintelligence to deepen art or
merely to imitate it.
The question is not only what AIcan do, but we ought to permit
it to do.
In the end, ethics is theboundary that keeps power from
(04:31):
outrunning wisdom.
So it is extremely important tocreate guardrails for new
technologies, not just AI, thatis, technologies that are
emerging and influencing how wethink about our own personal
(04:57):
immediate lives and ourinteraction with the world and
reality, and how our culture asa society, globally or
individually, is going to bechanged by using these new
technologies as they come,adapted, and developed.
So, ethical AI is based on whatdo we cherish as human beings in
(05:22):
ethics?
We need to ask ourselves thatquestion.
Every culture on the planetneeds to ask themselves what is
it that they need to protect orpreserve in our cultures, just
like an archaeologist or ahistorian protecting the
architecture of buildings indifferent cities like London or
(05:44):
Washington, DC, or historicalmonuments all over the world, as
the world develops, we havechosen as human beings to
protect the various monumentsthat now we call them monuments,
but they weren't at the timewhen they were built or used.
They were buildings that we'vecherished as culture evolved,
(06:09):
and we've chosen to keep them asthe world not needed them in the
original functionality, but nowthey need them as a reminder of
who we are and what we mean bysaying humans.
And that's really the bottomline of how we should be
thinking about uh what ethicalAI really means in the context
(06:34):
of filmmaking.
What is now the next part of thequestion, filmmaking means in
the world of AI.
It isn't about imitating um oldmovies or imitating different
types of uh new version of ourart form.
(06:58):
Um, it is about keeping thehumanity regardless of the tools
that we use.
SPEAKER_02 (07:08):
Keeping the humanity, meaning maintain our
individuality and our freedomsand wisdom.
SPEAKER_00 (07:17):
That is correct, but I mean the word humanity or
being human, it comes underscrutiny very closely in this
context when we are mixing anartificial form of
communication, um, an artificialform of intelligence that is
(07:39):
coming into our lives, and weblur the lines between what
intelligent human beings are andaren't.
How do we define the uh outputof a human being?
And how do we compare it to umartificial intelligence output?
(08:05):
What makes one more valuablethan the other, or are they both
as valuable?
These are all ethical questionsthat we need to be asking.
But in my opinion, um I'm not anauthority on the world ethics,
but as a what I would like tothink of myself as an ethical
human being on the planet, Iwould like to preserve the
(08:29):
characteristics of what keeps usbeing human, which is our
feelings at any given moment intime, which translates into
reactions to events that happengenerally in society over a
short period of time, a longperiod of time, or an immediate
(08:51):
period of time.
So an artificial intelligence,at least for now, it isn't
capable of reacting emotionallyto anything.
So I guess part of the ethics ofour uh interaction with
(09:13):
artificial intelligence when weare making art, including
filmmaking, is that the art ofstorytelling has to remain a
human concept, a humanrelationship rather than an
artificial intelligence thatdoesn't feel anything like a
(09:35):
human being, and it is insteaddictating to human beings how to
react and interact with reality.
That's extremely dangerousbecause that's in essence a
dehumanization of the art ofstorytelling.
SPEAKER_02 (09:56):
Because you've been saying that AI could present us
in a different light.
SPEAKER_00 (10:04):
Yes, that's one way of looking at it.
It could present human beings ina different light, but the
danger lies in that AI createsstories, and the project of
storytelling ends up beingdehumanized, devoid of any
(10:26):
emotional input of any kind.
So the more you use AI, the moremechanical or unemotional the
output becomes.
And the danger is thatconsumers, the audience consumes
(10:47):
this mechanical content thinkingthat that's the norm of how
humans interact with reality.
I'll give you an example.
Imagine the television serieswith Jennifer Aniston and
(11:07):
Courtney Cox friends, is in thefuture written and produced and
directed and edited by AIwithout with let's say with
minimum human interaction oraddition or input.
(11:29):
What that does is that as wehave all experienced watching
television, we have somethingcalled learned culture.
We learn our own culture or thedeveloping social culture and
its norms and behavioralpatterns of interaction with
(11:50):
others through observing othersinteracting with each other.
So then observing an artificialintelligence output about human
interactions only demonstratesto other human beings a
(12:11):
fictitious, unrealistic,emotionally void, and empty
interaction between human beingsthat was created without the
nuances of humans and theirhuman interactions together.
And that to the audience will bea learning experience.
The young minds or unassumingminds will learn these behaviors
(12:37):
and social interactions from anartificial intelligence
outputting human fakeinteractions.
So, can you imagine what theresult would be to the masses of
audiences around the world forgenerations to come learning
(12:58):
about our human past and presentthrough an artificially created
human interaction that is voidof all emotions, just
simulations of happiness, ofawe, of fear, of disgust, of
intellect, then we are all goingto be influenced by that by that
(13:24):
as if you have an artificialmind.
It's like having an artificialmother teaching you how to
behave.
SPEAKER_02 (13:29):
Okay.
All right.
Well, because my son was anactor, Basil, I know how much an
actor alive, a human actor,contributes to the story because
there's always subtext, and theactor port portrays the subtext.
So when things are going alongand you you but you know this
(13:53):
character has a hidden agenda,you're looking for the hidden
agenda in his body moves, hisfacial expression, etc.
Because he's already tipped youoff with some words he gave you.
These things are not going tohappen with AI writing scripts,
right?
It won't have the depth that wecurrently have now delivered
(14:15):
through our brilliant actors.
SPEAKER_00 (14:19):
That is a great example, Carol, for what AI will
miss from the process ofcreating storytelling, uh, the
nuances and interpretations ofcollaborative human effort that
(14:40):
will be definitely missed.
Because, first of all, one AI,one thread of artificial
intelligence will never becompared to a group or
collective human behavioralcollaborative environment.
(15:05):
Even if we were to simulate agroup of artificial intelligent
machines collaborating, thatcollaboration will result to a
mechanical rigid, void ofimmediate emotional reactions to
(15:28):
the material.
And the same goes for everyposition in the filmmaking
(15:52):
project collaborativeenvironment.
In like every crew member, whenthey're replaced the lighting,
the sound designer, the soundrecordist, the boom operator,
the um DP, the um director, theproducer, the writer.
(16:14):
If if you let AI write your ownscreenplay fully, without at
least 80%, or I would say go aslow as 75% of human input.
Any lower than that, in myexperience, you will find that
the output is void of emotionalhuman nuances that are essential
(16:41):
to keep humanity connected on ahuman level, on an emotional
level.
SPEAKER_02 (16:48):
And to tell good stories, Basil.
What good is a story if there'sno you if you can't feel
something?
SPEAKER_00 (16:57):
Correct.
And don't forget that AI isreiterative platform, it isn't
really creating uh an originalpiece of work.
I've thought about thisphilosophically for a long time,
(17:18):
for now, two years, since thefirst Chat GPT was available to
the public exactly two yearsago, in April 2024.
And even human beings, when theycreate a story or a piece of art
in any platform or form, it isiterative.
(17:42):
That means the artist interpretsthe world and reality and their
own emotions based on theirinput, based on all the stimuli
that they were able to interactwith throughout their lifetime,
from childhood to their currentposition.
(18:06):
AI doesn't have that experience.
It cannot have that experienceof a growing child who learns
about the world in gradualprocesses that allows for the
brain of a child to interpretthe world while the brain is
(18:29):
developing, hence things likecartoons.
The reason cartoons exist isbecause of the phase in which
humans have to go through tointerpret reality.
As children, we as children tendto interact with the world in a
(18:55):
manner that allows us tounderstand it and relate to it
emotionally on a child's levelof understanding.
That interpretation is carriedon in our lives as we grow older
and as we reinterpret reality inevery phase of our lives, we
(19:20):
have then a conglomerate, acollection of interpretations of
almost every single thing.
We have a child inside of us,essentially, and a teenager and
a young adult and an older adultall interpreting reality
simultaneously, almost at alltimes.
(19:44):
That process is completelyunavailable to artificial
intelligence output.
And that's why, like I said,cartoons were created.
They were created for the phaseof human beings at a certain
age, and that's why romanticcomedies were created.
The entire concept of havingdifferent genres in filmmaking,
(20:09):
the division of genres werecreated because of the
differences and individualismand individual uh backgrounds of
human beings throughout historyin all times.
That's why we have historicaldramas, religious dramas.
Religion doesn't have a placefor an artificial intelligence.
(20:32):
Philosophy doesn't have a placefor artificial intelligence.
It's not interested, AI is notinterested in telling you a
story about Jesus or the partingof the Red Sea or fairy tales or
Lord of the Rings or but it isforced.
(20:52):
If you were to let an AI tocreate in an autonomous manner a
story, it will interpret as anoutsider what stories would be
interested interesting foraudiences from a human species.
(21:15):
So it's an outsider of the humanspecies interpreting what
interests the human species, asopposed to a human being, a
member of the human species,feeling and empathizing with the
(21:36):
current human species, creatingwithin the human species.
Therefore, my conclusion as athinker and a futurist and a
filmmaker and artist and a humanbeing above all, I feel that
although I'm not against AI andI don't recommend anyone to be
(21:57):
against it in a strict orradicalized manner, it is
extremely important to keep thevision of being human beings,
sharing a human experience,telling human stories to human
beings, and using AI as asimulation tool to give or
(22:26):
output ideas that might inspirefurther human outputs rather
than automate an output thatsimulates human outputs.
SPEAKER_02 (22:41):
Right.
Well, that's an interestingconcept.
You think, and something verydifficult made it nice and
clear.
Well, you're right.
I always love Spielberg becausehe makes films with the kid, the
child inside of him is that'swho's monitoring and making and
(23:02):
directing his films because youalways he touches the child in
you.
And then on the other side,you've got Tim Burton, who Likes
to look at the dark side.
And from his work, we all enjoythat because he touches on the
evil and then pulls back andshows us how to overcome evil
(23:22):
with good.
But these are all things that wecan feel and emotionally react
to.
And you're saying, how could amachine write that kind of
content?
SPEAKER_00 (23:37):
Correct.
It's not just about writing thecontent, it's about feeling the
seed.
Like you're you're basicallyplanting a plant in the soil
from a seed and hoping that theplant will grow in a
(23:59):
well-mannered way.
So that's what nature is.
It has its way, and the tree cangrow sideways because the wind
influences it while it'sgrowing, or it grows straight
up, which indicates that thewind conditions were not
(24:24):
drastic.
So having an AI simulate thegrowth of a tree in a story will
have to also simulate theconditions that the tree grew
in, not only symbolically, butrealistically from a human
(24:48):
experience, which it lacks.
And that is the biggest issueI've encountered with AI, that
it lacks the immediacy andrelevance for every question it
asks and for every question itanswers.
It isn't really caring.
(25:13):
It doesn't have a relevance.
Its existence in itself feels toitself irrelevant.
The universe is irrelevant toit.
The universe matters to us, ourconsciousness matters to us.
Our consciousness doesn't matterto it.
(25:35):
It simulates the value of humanexperience rather than
experiences the humanexperience.
So then storytelling is void ofthe relevance and importance of
the concept itself, which is theseed that makes the story tree
(26:00):
grow.
The seed has to be an emotionalrelevance.
That is lax, it's lacking in theprocess of artificial
intelligence writing stories.
Therefore, it needs to continuebeing a tool just like any other
(26:22):
tool we've developed throughoutthe years in filmmaking.
Did you know that filmmakersback in the 1910s and 11 and 12
had to draw every single glassplate to create visual effects
by hand?
And every human being that washired as an artist to draw the
(26:46):
artificial background plate,whether it was a piece of glass
that creates a foreground layerin a visual effects sequence or
a background layer or aforeground, middle ground, and a
background layer, they all hadto humanly be relevant to evoke
(27:11):
the right human emotions.
AI now can simulate theseeffects, but when you watch it,
you you immediately, as a humanbeing, feel that there is
something odd that is missing.
And after experimenting with thetool for now over two years,
(27:35):
very closely with many giftedhuman beings that I collaborate
with on a daily basis, we foundthat the reason why human beings
viewing artificial intelligenceoutput feel that there is
something missing.
And that ingredient that ismissing is indeed missing, which
(27:56):
is the immediate human relevanceto every single output.
Why is it, for example, a redbackground rather than a blue
background?
Or why is it not golden hoursunset versus a lunar midnight
(28:21):
hour?
These choices are not justlogical, and that is the bottom
line.
AI is an extremely logicalreiterative tool that should
never be, although a lot ofpeople will in the future use it
(28:44):
in that manner, but it shouldnever be heavily used because it
will saturate the dehumanizationof the arts or the art form
output.
SPEAKER_02 (28:59):
Well, let's get into some practical things.
How do you think the union andthe studios and independent
filmmakers should adapt to theAI-driven workflows?
SPEAKER_00 (29:13):
Unions must adapt.
That is just the historicallytrue position of every guild and
every union and every group,human groups, collective that
has existed in humanity.
(29:34):
They must adapt with clarityrather than panic.
Unions should defend dignity,consent, credit, and
compensation.
Studios should pursue efficiencywithout abandoning
responsibility.
(29:55):
Independent filmmakers shoulduse these tools to expand
possibility while preserving theirreplaceable value of human
judgment, which we've spokenabout.
SPEAKER_02 (30:11):
Yes, exactly.
Well, they're going to have todo that to get us into the
theaters and to get us to acceptthe stories and things, I feel,
but of course, I've beenwatching movies for years, and
for merging audiences, they theycould be trained on AI and never
(30:33):
know what they're missingbecause they haven't had the
advantages of all the greatfilms that came out of the 60s
and 70s.
So, all right, let's stay onthis tack for how do we protect
the originality and theauthorship in the era of AI.
SPEAKER_00 (30:55):
Um okay, we have to be very specific because we're
we're talking about generativeAI.
Um, because AI was around for along time.
It just wasn't called AI.
Uh uh it was uh used as uhautonomous programming.
So what we're really uh thequestion I hope that that's what
(31:17):
you meant to ask is how do weprotect originality and
authorship in an era ofgenerative AI?
SPEAKER_02 (31:24):
Yes.
SPEAKER_00 (31:25):
Okay.
So we protect it by preserving,remembering where originality
truly lives.
What makes something original?
Why do human beings judge an artform or a particular piece of
(31:48):
art as original?
It does not live in the speed ofoutput.
Originality isn't about speed,but it lives in the intention,
the taste, the culture, theexperience, and the choice.
(32:09):
Picasso is a Picasso because ofthe choice that he chose when he
wanted to express a field withsunset or Guernica, the painting
of the Spanish Revolution in anage of modernism.
(32:32):
It wasn't painted like paintingswere in the Renaissance era.
As an example that will makethis very clear to all human
beings alive today.
Imagine AI existed beforePicasso became famous or
(32:56):
respected.
Picasso, as a human artist,developed out of classical
painting.
He started out as a student ofart, drawing reality as it
appeared to all human beings.
If AI had existed at thatmoment, at that time, it would
(33:20):
not have come up with modernism,because it would have iterated
everything that happened beforeit existed at that moment in
time in history.
Therefore, Guernica, the SpanishRevolution painting, uh, almost
abstract uh genre of art wouldnot have ever existed unless a
(33:46):
human being had 100% felt theinterpretation in the manner in
which Picasso had felt it, withthe same relevance and
relationship.
And we are at that very samejunction today in humanity.
We have Picasso's live among ustoday, in the present moment,
(34:10):
that may not be heard ever,because artificial intelligence
will reiterate every genrethat's ever existed up until
only today, and the futurePicasso will never get the
chance to have the spotlight asthe spotlight that would be shed
(34:31):
on an AI output that had ahundred million dollar budget
from a studio to make a piece offilm or an art form.
So, to wrap this up, thisquestion up a machine may
generate patterns, but it doesnot possess a life from which
(34:56):
meaning arises.
Authorship remains human whenhumans remain accountable for
their vision.
SPEAKER_02 (35:08):
Well, then how do we protect originality and
authorship in an area ofgenerative AI?
We really have to be right ontop of everything, uh, don't we?
We have to record and protectourselves.
SPEAKER_00 (35:23):
Unfortunately, the word comes to mind is control.
And if uh profits in our societycontinue guiding and influencing
human decisions, that is thedeath of human relevance.
SPEAKER_02 (35:45):
All right.
Oh wow, that's frightening.
Well, do you believe audiencesshould be informed when AI is
used in a film?
And why or why not?
SPEAKER_00 (35:58):
Human beings, unfortunately, Carol, throughout
history have proven that theylie.
Hence the Bible, the Torah, theQuran, and almost every single
ethical book on the planetthat's ever existed mentioned
they shall not lie.
(36:19):
Because human beings lie.
So just like our food and ourwater and our products and
services always havecontaminants, always have
undesirable ingredients that weare having to consume without
(36:40):
knowing, because humans lie.
Artificial intelligence will bean ingredient that human beings
will find it extremely difficultto control the declaration of
its percentage or amount ofcontribution into an art form.
(37:05):
So the answer to the question isyes, we all would like to see a
transparent system that caneasily describe the percentage
of artificial intelligencecontribution to a particular art
form, but I doubt very much thatit would be something that human
(37:31):
beings will abide by uh veryclosely.
It will be um people will lieabout how much contribution
artificial intelligence hascontributed to an art form.
SPEAKER_02 (37:48):
All right, now do you think we're entering an era
where storytelling becomes lessabout creation and more about
curation?
SPEAKER_00 (37:59):
Um in part, yes, as generation becomes easier, the
the output, the artificialintelligence generation becomes
easier, uh, a discernmentprocess becomes more valuable.
The artists of the future, thePicasso's of the future, the
(38:21):
Spielbergs of the future, maybedefined less by the ability to
produce endlessly, and more bythe wisdom to choose well.
So it is true that what makes agreat artist is their uh
(38:45):
collective selection anddecision making.
In fact, editors have an edit oran editor's decision list, and
that's how editing occurs is bymaking decisions, and the
decisions are made by both thedirector who is influenced
(39:06):
partly by not only his visionbut also the funding, the
producers behind a particularproject, and then these
decisions are passed on to aneditor, and the editor
interprets the decision list byresolving the decision list into
(39:33):
an editable version of the EDLor the edit decision list.
So, yes, it is about choices andcuration, but curation at its
highest level possible is stilla form of creation.
So uh fashion is a form ofcuration, and and it's very
(40:00):
prevalent and obvious in the uhin men's fashion more than uh
women's fashion.
For example, a men's suit hasall the ingredients uh that
existed in a men's suit from theeighteen hundreds.
(40:23):
Still today, in the 21stcentury, there are more
ingredients in a men's suit froman 18th century suit.
The collars, the buttons,double-breasted,
single-breasted, so on and soforth.
In women's fashion, becausewomen are much more creative
creatures than men in somefashion, um, no pun intended.
(40:50):
Um in women's fashion, um thereare new uh pieces of garments
that actually were inventedrather than developed out of an
existing piece of fashion thatexisted in the 1800s.
So there are new things thathave occurred, new inventions
(41:12):
and developments have occurredmuch more, much further than the
men's fashion.
That's because of utility, notnecessarily because of AI,
generative AI input or output.
But I'm I'm giving this examplein order to show that the
revolution that occurred inwomen's fashion throughout
(41:35):
history needed a female orfeminine or female necessity to
a revolution in culture,intellect, and that reflected
itself back into fashion.
When Chanel first introduced theworld in the beginning of the
(41:59):
20th century to the ensemble,which is the feminine suit,
which is a jacket-like uhgarment and a skirt.
That was a revolution.
AI doesn't have the necessity tocreate something like that if it
(42:20):
was found at that same socialjuncture.
So it needs to be veryunderstood, very clearly uh
adopted in the world oftechnology.
Technology now plays a very bigpart in cultural and uh
influence on our society.
(42:42):
So then the real curators of ourfuture societies are going to be
the technology developers, andwe as human beings need to voice
our concerns when we seesomething that is dehumanizing
the relevance of humansentiment.
So again, to wrap this up, um,it is a form of curation, yes,
(43:07):
the future artist will becreating through curation.
And curation is the highestlevel of curation in order to
create a creation.
SPEAKER_02 (43:23):
Well, thank you for that, Basil.
So to wrap this up, we just havea few minutes left.
Could you tell us how you thinkAR will change the role of
directors, producers, andactors?
SPEAKER_00 (43:36):
Directors, okay, I'll make this very short.
So directors may become very uhlike conductors in an orchestra
of vast creative systems.
They're gonna direct uh the umthe group or the collective of
uh various individuals,collaborators, and technologists
(43:58):
and technologies as a conductor.
Producers may become architectsof efficiency and they will use
artificial intelligence tocreate much more efficient paths
to a specific group of tasks.
And of course, producers mustkeep the architecture of ethics
(44:24):
and coordination alive in orderto maintain humanity over the
project.
Actors may find that theiruniqueness becomes even more
precious in a world that cansimulate surfaces.
The human gift will not vanish,but it may become more clearly
(44:46):
defined.
SPEAKER_02 (44:50):
Wonderful.
Thank you so much, Basil.
This conversation reminds usthat technology itself is not
the problem.
It's how we choose to use it.
So AI can accelerate thefilmmaking process, open new
creative doors, and helpindependent filmmakers do more
with less, but at the same time.
(45:12):
Time it challenges us to staygrounded in what makes
storytelling meaningful, whichis authenticity, intention, and
human connection.
And as filmmakers, we're beingasked to evolve, not just
technically but ethically, tounderstand these tools and to
question them and use them inways that support rather than
(45:36):
replace our own creative voices.
So Basil has given us a powerfulframework for thinking about
that balance between innovation,integrity, and originality.
I encourage you to stay curious,stay informed, and most
importantly, stay connected tothe reason you tell stories in
the first place, because nomatter how advanced the
(45:59):
technology becomes, it's stillyour vision, your voice that
gives a film its power.
You are the magic.
Thank you, Claire, and thankyou, Basil.
This is wonderful.
I'm Carol Dean, and this is theart of film funding.
Keep learning and keep movingforward.
SPEAKER_00 (46:21):
Thank you.
AI is already changing how films are written,
edited, and even imagined.
But what does that mean for yourcreative voice, your ownership,
and your future as a filmmaker?
Stay tuned.
SPEAKER_01 (01:34):
Hello, I'm Claire Papan, co-producer with Carol
Dean, president of From theHeart Productions.
Today on the Art of FilmFunding, we're stepping into one
of the most important andcomplex conversations facing
filmmakers today (01:49):
artificial intelligence.
AI is no longer something on thehorizon.
It's already here, quietlyreshaping how films are
developed, produced, edited, andeven distributed.
But with that power comescritical questions about ethics,
(02:12):
authorship, and the future ofcreative work itself.
Our guest today, Basil Moore,brings a rare perspective to
this conversation.
He's a film producer, futurist,and international co-production
strategist whose work bridgesemerging technology and
(02:34):
storytelling.
He's collaborated with majormedia companies, including
Universal Music, TwentiethCentury Fox, and ABC Disney.
And he focuses on how new tools,especially AI, can be integrated
responsibly into the filmmakingprocess.
(02:56):
In this episode, we're not justtalking about what AI can do,
we're exploring what it shoulddo and how filmmakers can stay
aligned with their creativevoice while navigating a rapidly
evolving industry.
And Carol, I know you want todive into this conversation with
(03:18):
Basil, and I'm going to turn itright over to you now.
SPEAKER_02 (03:21):
Oh, thank you, Claire.
Yes, I'm excited, Basil.
We're honored to have you shareyour ideas.
SPEAKER_00 (03:28):
Thank you so much.
SPEAKER_02 (03:30):
Okay, so let's get started.
What does ethical AI actuallymean in the context of
filmmaking?
SPEAKER_00 (03:40):
Thank you, uh, Claire and Carol, for having me
on the show.
Um, first, um, it is animportant subject to my heart,
the um filmmaking and the wordethics combined together in one
sentence.
And the reason being is becauseethical AI and filmmaking means
that our tools must remain inservice of human conscience.
(04:06):
It asks whether we are usingintelligence to deepen art or
merely to imitate it.
The question is not only what AIcan do, but we ought to permit
it to do.
In the end, ethics is theboundary that keeps power from
(04:31):
outrunning wisdom.
So it is extremely important tocreate guardrails for new
technologies, not just AI, thatis, technologies that are
emerging and influencing how wethink about our own personal
(04:57):
immediate lives and ourinteraction with the world and
reality, and how our culture asa society, globally or
individually, is going to bechanged by using these new
technologies as they come,adapted, and developed.
So, ethical AI is based on whatdo we cherish as human beings in
(05:22):
ethics?
We need to ask ourselves thatquestion.
Every culture on the planetneeds to ask themselves what is
it that they need to protect orpreserve in our cultures, just
like an archaeologist or ahistorian protecting the
architecture of buildings indifferent cities like London or
(05:44):
Washington, DC, or historicalmonuments all over the world, as
the world develops, we havechosen as human beings to
protect the various monumentsthat now we call them monuments,
but they weren't at the timewhen they were built or used.
They were buildings that we'vecherished as culture evolved,
(06:09):
and we've chosen to keep them asthe world not needed them in the
original functionality, but nowthey need them as a reminder of
who we are and what we mean bysaying humans.
And that's really the bottomline of how we should be
thinking about uh what ethicalAI really means in the context
(06:34):
of filmmaking.
What is now the next part of thequestion, filmmaking means in
the world of AI.
It isn't about imitating um oldmovies or imitating different
types of uh new version of ourart form.
(06:58):
Um, it is about keeping thehumanity regardless of the tools
that we use.
SPEAKER_02 (07:08):
Keeping the humanity, meaning maintain our
individuality and our freedomsand wisdom.
SPEAKER_00 (07:17):
That is correct, but I mean the word humanity or
being human, it comes underscrutiny very closely in this
context when we are mixing anartificial form of
communication, um, an artificialform of intelligence that is
(07:39):
coming into our lives, and weblur the lines between what
intelligent human beings are andaren't.
How do we define the uh outputof a human being?
And how do we compare it to umartificial intelligence output?
(08:05):
What makes one more valuablethan the other, or are they both
as valuable?
These are all ethical questionsthat we need to be asking.
But in my opinion, um I'm not anauthority on the world ethics,
but as a what I would like tothink of myself as an ethical
human being on the planet, Iwould like to preserve the
(08:29):
characteristics of what keeps usbeing human, which is our
feelings at any given moment intime, which translates into
reactions to events that happengenerally in society over a
short period of time, a longperiod of time, or an immediate
(08:51):
period of time.
So an artificial intelligence,at least for now, it isn't
capable of reacting emotionallyto anything.
So I guess part of the ethics ofour uh interaction with
(09:13):
artificial intelligence when weare making art, including
filmmaking, is that the art ofstorytelling has to remain a
human concept, a humanrelationship rather than an
artificial intelligence thatdoesn't feel anything like a
(09:35):
human being, and it is insteaddictating to human beings how to
react and interact with reality.
That's extremely dangerousbecause that's in essence a
dehumanization of the art ofstorytelling.
SPEAKER_02 (09:56):
Because you've been saying that AI could present us
in a different light.
SPEAKER_00 (10:04):
Yes, that's one way of looking at it.
It could present human beings ina different light, but the
danger lies in that AI createsstories, and the project of
storytelling ends up beingdehumanized, devoid of any
(10:26):
emotional input of any kind.
So the more you use AI, the moremechanical or unemotional the
output becomes.
And the danger is thatconsumers, the audience consumes
(10:47):
this mechanical content thinkingthat that's the norm of how
humans interact with reality.
I'll give you an example.
Imagine the television serieswith Jennifer Aniston and
(11:07):
Courtney Cox friends, is in thefuture written and produced and
directed and edited by AIwithout with let's say with
minimum human interaction oraddition or input.
(11:29):
What that does is that as wehave all experienced watching
television, we have somethingcalled learned culture.
We learn our own culture or thedeveloping social culture and
its norms and behavioralpatterns of interaction with
(11:50):
others through observing othersinteracting with each other.
So then observing an artificialintelligence output about human
interactions only demonstratesto other human beings a
(12:11):
fictitious, unrealistic,emotionally void, and empty
interaction between human beingsthat was created without the
nuances of humans and theirhuman interactions together.
And that to the audience will bea learning experience.
The young minds or unassumingminds will learn these behaviors
(12:37):
and social interactions from anartificial intelligence
outputting human fakeinteractions.
So, can you imagine what theresult would be to the masses of
audiences around the world forgenerations to come learning
(12:58):
about our human past and presentthrough an artificially created
human interaction that is voidof all emotions, just
simulations of happiness, ofawe, of fear, of disgust, of
intellect, then we are all goingto be influenced by that by that
(13:24):
as if you have an artificialmind.
It's like having an artificialmother teaching you how to
behave.
SPEAKER_02 (13:29):
Okay.
All right.
Well, because my son was anactor, Basil, I know how much an
actor alive, a human actor,contributes to the story because
there's always subtext, and theactor port portrays the subtext.
So when things are going alongand you you but you know this
(13:53):
character has a hidden agenda,you're looking for the hidden
agenda in his body moves, hisfacial expression, etc.
Because he's already tipped youoff with some words he gave you.
These things are not going tohappen with AI writing scripts,
right?
It won't have the depth that wecurrently have now delivered
(14:15):
through our brilliant actors.
SPEAKER_00 (14:19):
That is a great example, Carol, for what AI will
miss from the process ofcreating storytelling, uh, the
nuances and interpretations ofcollaborative human effort that
(14:40):
will be definitely missed.
Because, first of all, one AI,one thread of artificial
intelligence will never becompared to a group or
collective human behavioralcollaborative environment.
(15:05):
Even if we were to simulate agroup of artificial intelligent
machines collaborating, thatcollaboration will result to a
mechanical rigid, void ofimmediate emotional reactions to
(15:28):
the material.
And the same goes for everyposition in the filmmaking
(15:52):
project collaborativeenvironment.
In like every crew member, whenthey're replaced the lighting,
the sound designer, the soundrecordist, the boom operator,
the um DP, the um director, theproducer, the writer.
(16:14):
If if you let AI write your ownscreenplay fully, without at
least 80%, or I would say go aslow as 75% of human input.
Any lower than that, in myexperience, you will find that
the output is void of emotionalhuman nuances that are essential
(16:41):
to keep humanity connected on ahuman level, on an emotional
level.
SPEAKER_02 (16:48):
And to tell good stories, Basil.
What good is a story if there'sno you if you can't feel
something?
SPEAKER_00 (16:57):
Correct.
And don't forget that AI isreiterative platform, it isn't
really creating uh an originalpiece of work.
I've thought about thisphilosophically for a long time,
(17:18):
for now, two years, since thefirst Chat GPT was available to
the public exactly two yearsago, in April 2024.
And even human beings, when theycreate a story or a piece of art
in any platform or form, it isiterative.
(17:42):
That means the artist interpretsthe world and reality and their
own emotions based on theirinput, based on all the stimuli
that they were able to interactwith throughout their lifetime,
from childhood to their currentposition.
(18:06):
AI doesn't have that experience.
It cannot have that experienceof a growing child who learns
about the world in gradualprocesses that allows for the
brain of a child to interpretthe world while the brain is
(18:29):
developing, hence things likecartoons.
The reason cartoons exist isbecause of the phase in which
humans have to go through tointerpret reality.
As children, we as children tendto interact with the world in a
(18:55):
manner that allows us tounderstand it and relate to it
emotionally on a child's levelof understanding.
That interpretation is carriedon in our lives as we grow older
and as we reinterpret reality inevery phase of our lives, we
(19:20):
have then a conglomerate, acollection of interpretations of
almost every single thing.
We have a child inside of us,essentially, and a teenager and
a young adult and an older adultall interpreting reality
simultaneously, almost at alltimes.
(19:44):
That process is completelyunavailable to artificial
intelligence output.
And that's why, like I said,cartoons were created.
They were created for the phaseof human beings at a certain
age, and that's why romanticcomedies were created.
The entire concept of havingdifferent genres in filmmaking,
(20:09):
the division of genres werecreated because of the
differences and individualismand individual uh backgrounds of
human beings throughout historyin all times.
That's why we have historicaldramas, religious dramas.
Religion doesn't have a placefor an artificial intelligence.
(20:32):
Philosophy doesn't have a placefor artificial intelligence.
It's not interested, AI is notinterested in telling you a
story about Jesus or the partingof the Red Sea or fairy tales or
Lord of the Rings or but it isforced.
(20:52):
If you were to let an AI tocreate in an autonomous manner a
story, it will interpret as anoutsider what stories would be
interested interesting foraudiences from a human species.
(21:15):
So it's an outsider of the humanspecies interpreting what
interests the human species, asopposed to a human being, a
member of the human species,feeling and empathizing with the
(21:36):
current human species, creatingwithin the human species.
Therefore, my conclusion as athinker and a futurist and a
filmmaker and artist and a humanbeing above all, I feel that
although I'm not against AI andI don't recommend anyone to be
(21:57):
against it in a strict orradicalized manner, it is
extremely important to keep thevision of being human beings,
sharing a human experience,telling human stories to human
beings, and using AI as asimulation tool to give or
(22:26):
output ideas that might inspirefurther human outputs rather
than automate an output thatsimulates human outputs.
SPEAKER_02 (22:41):
Right.
Well, that's an interestingconcept.
You think, and something verydifficult made it nice and
clear.
Well, you're right.
I always love Spielberg becausehe makes films with the kid, the
child inside of him is that'swho's monitoring and making and
(23:02):
directing his films because youalways he touches the child in
you.
And then on the other side,you've got Tim Burton, who Likes
to look at the dark side.
And from his work, we all enjoythat because he touches on the
evil and then pulls back andshows us how to overcome evil
(23:22):
with good.
But these are all things that wecan feel and emotionally react
to.
And you're saying, how could amachine write that kind of
content?
SPEAKER_00 (23:37):
Correct.
It's not just about writing thecontent, it's about feeling the
seed.
Like you're you're basicallyplanting a plant in the soil
from a seed and hoping that theplant will grow in a
(23:59):
well-mannered way.
So that's what nature is.
It has its way, and the tree cangrow sideways because the wind
influences it while it'sgrowing, or it grows straight
up, which indicates that thewind conditions were not
(24:24):
drastic.
So having an AI simulate thegrowth of a tree in a story will
have to also simulate theconditions that the tree grew
in, not only symbolically, butrealistically from a human
(24:48):
experience, which it lacks.
And that is the biggest issueI've encountered with AI, that
it lacks the immediacy andrelevance for every question it
asks and for every question itanswers.
It isn't really caring.
(25:13):
It doesn't have a relevance.
Its existence in itself feels toitself irrelevant.
The universe is irrelevant toit.
The universe matters to us, ourconsciousness matters to us.
Our consciousness doesn't matterto it.
(25:35):
It simulates the value of humanexperience rather than
experiences the humanexperience.
So then storytelling is void ofthe relevance and importance of
the concept itself, which is theseed that makes the story tree
(26:00):
grow.
The seed has to be an emotionalrelevance.
That is lax, it's lacking in theprocess of artificial
intelligence writing stories.
Therefore, it needs to continuebeing a tool just like any other
(26:22):
tool we've developed throughoutthe years in filmmaking.
Did you know that filmmakersback in the 1910s and 11 and 12
had to draw every single glassplate to create visual effects
by hand?
And every human being that washired as an artist to draw the
(26:46):
artificial background plate,whether it was a piece of glass
that creates a foreground layerin a visual effects sequence or
a background layer or aforeground, middle ground, and a
background layer, they all hadto humanly be relevant to evoke
(27:11):
the right human emotions.
AI now can simulate theseeffects, but when you watch it,
you you immediately, as a humanbeing, feel that there is
something odd that is missing.
And after experimenting with thetool for now over two years,
(27:35):
very closely with many giftedhuman beings that I collaborate
with on a daily basis, we foundthat the reason why human beings
viewing artificial intelligenceoutput feel that there is
something missing.
And that ingredient that ismissing is indeed missing, which
(27:56):
is the immediate human relevanceto every single output.
Why is it, for example, a redbackground rather than a blue
background?
Or why is it not golden hoursunset versus a lunar midnight
(28:21):
hour?
These choices are not justlogical, and that is the bottom
line.
AI is an extremely logicalreiterative tool that should
never be, although a lot ofpeople will in the future use it
(28:44):
in that manner, but it shouldnever be heavily used because it
will saturate the dehumanizationof the arts or the art form
output.
SPEAKER_02 (28:59):
Well, let's get into some practical things.
How do you think the union andthe studios and independent
filmmakers should adapt to theAI-driven workflows?
SPEAKER_00 (29:13):
Unions must adapt.
That is just the historicallytrue position of every guild and
every union and every group,human groups, collective that
has existed in humanity.
(29:34):
They must adapt with clarityrather than panic.
Unions should defend dignity,consent, credit, and
compensation.
Studios should pursue efficiencywithout abandoning
responsibility.
(29:55):
Independent filmmakers shoulduse these tools to expand
possibility while preserving theirreplaceable value of human
judgment, which we've spokenabout.
SPEAKER_02 (30:11):
Yes, exactly.
Well, they're going to have todo that to get us into the
theaters and to get us to acceptthe stories and things, I feel,
but of course, I've beenwatching movies for years, and
for merging audiences, they theycould be trained on AI and never
(30:33):
know what they're missingbecause they haven't had the
advantages of all the greatfilms that came out of the 60s
and 70s.
So, all right, let's stay onthis tack for how do we protect
the originality and theauthorship in the era of AI.
SPEAKER_00 (30:55):
Um okay, we have to be very specific because we're
we're talking about generativeAI.
Um, because AI was around for along time.
It just wasn't called AI.
Uh uh it was uh used as uhautonomous programming.
So what we're really uh thequestion I hope that that's what
(31:17):
you meant to ask is how do weprotect originality and
authorship in an era ofgenerative AI?
SPEAKER_02 (31:24):
Yes.
SPEAKER_00 (31:25):
Okay.
So we protect it by preserving,remembering where originality
truly lives.
What makes something original?
Why do human beings judge an artform or a particular piece of
(31:48):
art as original?
It does not live in the speed ofoutput.
Originality isn't about speed,but it lives in the intention,
the taste, the culture, theexperience, and the choice.
(32:09):
Picasso is a Picasso because ofthe choice that he chose when he
wanted to express a field withsunset or Guernica, the painting
of the Spanish Revolution in anage of modernism.
(32:32):
It wasn't painted like paintingswere in the Renaissance era.
As an example that will makethis very clear to all human
beings alive today.
Imagine AI existed beforePicasso became famous or
(32:56):
respected.
Picasso, as a human artist,developed out of classical
painting.
He started out as a student ofart, drawing reality as it
appeared to all human beings.
If AI had existed at thatmoment, at that time, it would
(33:20):
not have come up with modernism,because it would have iterated
everything that happened beforeit existed at that moment in
time in history.
Therefore, Guernica, the SpanishRevolution painting, uh, almost
abstract uh genre of art wouldnot have ever existed unless a
(33:46):
human being had 100% felt theinterpretation in the manner in
which Picasso had felt it, withthe same relevance and
relationship.
And we are at that very samejunction today in humanity.
We have Picasso's live among ustoday, in the present moment,
(34:10):
that may not be heard ever,because artificial intelligence
will reiterate every genrethat's ever existed up until
only today, and the futurePicasso will never get the
chance to have the spotlight asthe spotlight that would be shed
(34:31):
on an AI output that had ahundred million dollar budget
from a studio to make a piece offilm or an art form.
So, to wrap this up, thisquestion up a machine may
generate patterns, but it doesnot possess a life from which
(34:56):
meaning arises.
Authorship remains human whenhumans remain accountable for
their vision.
SPEAKER_02 (35:08):
Well, then how do we protect originality and
authorship in an area ofgenerative AI?
We really have to be right ontop of everything, uh, don't we?
We have to record and protectourselves.
SPEAKER_00 (35:23):
Unfortunately, the word comes to mind is control.
And if uh profits in our societycontinue guiding and influencing
human decisions, that is thedeath of human relevance.
SPEAKER_02 (35:45):
All right.
Oh wow, that's frightening.
Well, do you believe audiencesshould be informed when AI is
used in a film?
And why or why not?
SPEAKER_00 (35:58):
Human beings, unfortunately, Carol, throughout
history have proven that theylie.
Hence the Bible, the Torah, theQuran, and almost every single
ethical book on the planetthat's ever existed mentioned
they shall not lie.
(36:19):
Because human beings lie.
So just like our food and ourwater and our products and
services always havecontaminants, always have
undesirable ingredients that weare having to consume without
(36:40):
knowing, because humans lie.
Artificial intelligence will bean ingredient that human beings
will find it extremely difficultto control the declaration of
its percentage or amount ofcontribution into an art form.
(37:05):
So the answer to the question isyes, we all would like to see a
transparent system that caneasily describe the percentage
of artificial intelligencecontribution to a particular art
form, but I doubt very much thatit would be something that human
(37:31):
beings will abide by uh veryclosely.
It will be um people will lieabout how much contribution
artificial intelligence hascontributed to an art form.
SPEAKER_02 (37:48):
All right, now do you think we're entering an era
where storytelling becomes lessabout creation and more about
curation?
SPEAKER_00 (37:59):
Um in part, yes, as generation becomes easier, the
the output, the artificialintelligence generation becomes
easier, uh, a discernmentprocess becomes more valuable.
The artists of the future, thePicasso's of the future, the
(38:21):
Spielbergs of the future, maybedefined less by the ability to
produce endlessly, and more bythe wisdom to choose well.
So it is true that what makes agreat artist is their uh
(38:45):
collective selection anddecision making.
In fact, editors have an edit oran editor's decision list, and
that's how editing occurs is bymaking decisions, and the
decisions are made by both thedirector who is influenced
(39:06):
partly by not only his visionbut also the funding, the
producers behind a particularproject, and then these
decisions are passed on to aneditor, and the editor
interprets the decision list byresolving the decision list into
(39:33):
an editable version of the EDLor the edit decision list.
So, yes, it is about choices andcuration, but curation at its
highest level possible is stilla form of creation.
So uh fashion is a form ofcuration, and and it's very
(40:00):
prevalent and obvious in the uhin men's fashion more than uh
women's fashion.
For example, a men's suit hasall the ingredients uh that
existed in a men's suit from theeighteen hundreds.
(40:23):
Still today, in the 21stcentury, there are more
ingredients in a men's suit froman 18th century suit.
The collars, the buttons,double-breasted,
single-breasted, so on and soforth.
In women's fashion, becausewomen are much more creative
creatures than men in somefashion, um, no pun intended.
(40:50):
Um in women's fashion, um thereare new uh pieces of garments
that actually were inventedrather than developed out of an
existing piece of fashion thatexisted in the 1800s.
So there are new things thathave occurred, new inventions
(41:12):
and developments have occurredmuch more, much further than the
men's fashion.
That's because of utility, notnecessarily because of AI,
generative AI input or output.
But I'm I'm giving this examplein order to show that the
revolution that occurred inwomen's fashion throughout
(41:35):
history needed a female orfeminine or female necessity to
a revolution in culture,intellect, and that reflected
itself back into fashion.
When Chanel first introduced theworld in the beginning of the
(41:59):
20th century to the ensemble,which is the feminine suit,
which is a jacket-like uhgarment and a skirt.
That was a revolution.
AI doesn't have the necessity tocreate something like that if it
(42:20):
was found at that same socialjuncture.
So it needs to be veryunderstood, very clearly uh
adopted in the world oftechnology.
Technology now plays a very bigpart in cultural and uh
influence on our society.
(42:42):
So then the real curators of ourfuture societies are going to be
the technology developers, andwe as human beings need to voice
our concerns when we seesomething that is dehumanizing
the relevance of humansentiment.
So again, to wrap this up, um,it is a form of curation, yes,
(43:07):
the future artist will becreating through curation.
And curation is the highestlevel of curation in order to
create a creation.
SPEAKER_02 (43:23):
Well, thank you for that, Basil.
So to wrap this up, we just havea few minutes left.
Could you tell us how you thinkAR will change the role of
directors, producers, andactors?
SPEAKER_00 (43:36):
Directors, okay, I'll make this very short.
So directors may become very uhlike conductors in an orchestra
of vast creative systems.
They're gonna direct uh the umthe group or the collective of
uh various individuals,collaborators, and technologists
(43:58):
and technologies as a conductor.
Producers may become architectsof efficiency and they will use
artificial intelligence tocreate much more efficient paths
to a specific group of tasks.
And of course, producers mustkeep the architecture of ethics
(44:24):
and coordination alive in orderto maintain humanity over the
project.
Actors may find that theiruniqueness becomes even more
precious in a world that cansimulate surfaces.
The human gift will not vanish,but it may become more clearly
(44:46):
defined.
SPEAKER_02 (44:50):
Wonderful.
Thank you so much, Basil.
This conversation reminds usthat technology itself is not
the problem.
It's how we choose to use it.
So AI can accelerate thefilmmaking process, open new
creative doors, and helpindependent filmmakers do more
with less, but at the same time.
(45:12):
Time it challenges us to staygrounded in what makes
storytelling meaningful, whichis authenticity, intention, and
human connection.
And as filmmakers, we're beingasked to evolve, not just
technically but ethically, tounderstand these tools and to
question them and use them inways that support rather than
(45:36):
replace our own creative voices.
So Basil has given us a powerfulframework for thinking about
that balance between innovation,integrity, and originality.
I encourage you to stay curious,stay informed, and most
importantly, stay connected tothe reason you tell stories in
the first place, because nomatter how advanced the
(45:59):
technology becomes, it's stillyour vision, your voice that
gives a film its power.
You are the magic.
Thank you, Claire, and thankyou, Basil.
This is wonderful.
I'm Carol Dean, and this is theart of film funding.
Keep learning and keep movingforward.
SPEAKER_00 (46:21):
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.