First of all, I’ve been a long-time reader and tend to agree with most of your posts, but this one feels like it leaned into semantics rather than unpacking the core of what I think Ben was trying to say. Of course, the definition of "art" is subjective, but in this context, I don't think he's speaking to TikToks, Mr. Beast-style productions or even children's animation...even though these formats are undeniably influential in cultural terms and the broader attention economy- not dismissing their significance. I see his comments as being about a different kind of creative output entirely which is the irreplaceable, emotive element and process of storytelling that AI, atleast today, cannot replicate. As the barrier to entry for creating visual content drops to nearly nothing, the value of incredible storytelling will only go up. No disrespect to the artists but when i watched those example AI videos I felt nothing. Bored even. Maybe that's because I inherently knew it was generated with a million specific prompts or maybe it's because it's just wasn't a compelling enough story. I'd liken it more to Video Art (which absolutely has and warrants appreciation and an audience albeit niche). A lot of the examples that tout themselves as AI generated short films etc that i've seen in general over the last 2 years all lack any emotional resonance, likely because the creators themselves just aren’t yet great storytellers. These tools—impressive as they are—still reflect the limitations of the humans using them. Over time, this will undoubtedly improve, but the gap between creating something technically impressive vs creating something that emotionally cuts through is significant. All this is to say that my takeaway from Ben was that AI won’t replace great storytellers. Instead, it will become a tool to help them create impactful, meaningful stories at a fraction of the cost, and at scale. And those expert story craftsmen—whether they’re working within traditional Hollywood or uploading directly to YouTube—are the ones who will thrive. No different than any other industry...the best software salesmen are going to rise to the top and the mediocre ones will be blown out of the water because the automation from AI tools will allow the greats to solely focus on what they do best. The real takeaway here isn’t whether AI will disrupt Hollywood (it will), but what that disruption means for the value of great storytelling. AI will undoubtedly democratize tools, lower costs, and create new opportunities, but the essence of art—the ability to tell stories that evoke connection and emotion—will remain rooted in humanity. The disruption is that we're finally going to be able to discover the best without any gatekeepers involved. /endrant
Thanks Alex for the thoughtful response, whether rant or not. Funny that you thought I was arguing semantics, because I was accusing Affleck of doing the same thing. I guess what's central is what is the question that we're asking? If the question is: will AI disrupt Hollywood, then I think the answer is yes, for all the reasons I outlined. I think Affleck was dismissive of that threat. I think you're raising a different question: will AI devalue art? I agree with your answer: no, it will make it more valuable than ever. But, as you say, it will also be more accessible than ever.
I also appreciate when people really engage and when we disagree it's more useful than when we agree - but I don't know where we disagree! I think we're just answering different questions.
I totally agree Alex. Doug Shapiro misses the mark here. He indeed leans into semantics and certainly misses the forest through the proverbial trees. Make no mistake, what Ben Affleck is stating is very accurate and what Mr. Shapiro is stating is not.
I don't know about his other readers, but it's also abundantly clear that Mr. Shapiro has no practical experience in the ultimate collaborative art of filmmaking. Rather, he only understands it academically or intellectually (i.e. as an interested investor or journalist would) but clearly doesn't understand how it's actually done. Thus, he doesn't fully understand what Ben Affleck is actually stating.
As the saying goes, smart people shut up and listen. So my advice for Mr. Shapiro is to shut up, ask Ben Affleck questions, listen to what he has to say and learn.
I remember when animation transitioned from hand-penciled to digital. Currently all animated movies are made with software. The same with comic-books, and the quality of the books and films in fact improved.
The issue here seems to be the implication that Generative AI tools can produce the final stage of the product, a statement that the current state of the art of this tools cannot do.
First of all, I’ve been a long-time reader and tend to agree with most of your posts, but this one feels like it leaned into semantics rather than unpacking the core of what I think Ben was trying to say. Of course, the definition of "art" is subjective, but in this context, I don't think he's speaking to TikToks, Mr. Beast-style productions or even children's animation...even though these formats are undeniably influential in cultural terms and the broader attention economy- not dismissing their significance. I see his comments as being about a different kind of creative output entirely which is the irreplaceable, emotive element and process of storytelling that AI, atleast today, cannot replicate. As the barrier to entry for creating visual content drops to nearly nothing, the value of incredible storytelling will only go up. No disrespect to the artists but when i watched those example AI videos I felt nothing. Bored even. Maybe that's because I inherently knew it was generated with a million specific prompts or maybe it's because it's just wasn't a compelling enough story. I'd liken it more to Video Art (which absolutely has and warrants appreciation and an audience albeit niche). A lot of the examples that tout themselves as AI generated short films etc that i've seen in general over the last 2 years all lack any emotional resonance, likely because the creators themselves just aren’t yet great storytellers. These tools—impressive as they are—still reflect the limitations of the humans using them. Over time, this will undoubtedly improve, but the gap between creating something technically impressive vs creating something that emotionally cuts through is significant. All this is to say that my takeaway from Ben was that AI won’t replace great storytellers. Instead, it will become a tool to help them create impactful, meaningful stories at a fraction of the cost, and at scale. And those expert story craftsmen—whether they’re working within traditional Hollywood or uploading directly to YouTube—are the ones who will thrive. No different than any other industry...the best software salesmen are going to rise to the top and the mediocre ones will be blown out of the water because the automation from AI tools will allow the greats to solely focus on what they do best. The real takeaway here isn’t whether AI will disrupt Hollywood (it will), but what that disruption means for the value of great storytelling. AI will undoubtedly democratize tools, lower costs, and create new opportunities, but the essence of art—the ability to tell stories that evoke connection and emotion—will remain rooted in humanity. The disruption is that we're finally going to be able to discover the best without any gatekeepers involved. /endrant
Thanks Alex for the thoughtful response, whether rant or not. Funny that you thought I was arguing semantics, because I was accusing Affleck of doing the same thing. I guess what's central is what is the question that we're asking? If the question is: will AI disrupt Hollywood, then I think the answer is yes, for all the reasons I outlined. I think Affleck was dismissive of that threat. I think you're raising a different question: will AI devalue art? I agree with your answer: no, it will make it more valuable than ever. But, as you say, it will also be more accessible than ever.
I also appreciate when people really engage and when we disagree it's more useful than when we agree - but I don't know where we disagree! I think we're just answering different questions.
I totally agree Alex. Doug Shapiro misses the mark here. He indeed leans into semantics and certainly misses the forest through the proverbial trees. Make no mistake, what Ben Affleck is stating is very accurate and what Mr. Shapiro is stating is not.
I don't know about his other readers, but it's also abundantly clear that Mr. Shapiro has no practical experience in the ultimate collaborative art of filmmaking. Rather, he only understands it academically or intellectually (i.e. as an interested investor or journalist would) but clearly doesn't understand how it's actually done. Thus, he doesn't fully understand what Ben Affleck is actually stating.
As the saying goes, smart people shut up and listen. So my advice for Mr. Shapiro is to shut up, ask Ben Affleck questions, listen to what he has to say and learn.
I remember when animation transitioned from hand-penciled to digital. Currently all animated movies are made with software. The same with comic-books, and the quality of the books and films in fact improved.
The issue here seems to be the implication that Generative AI tools can produce the final stage of the product, a statement that the current state of the art of this tools cannot do.