The Oscars have entered the age of artificial intelligence (AI). Last week the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences explicitly said, for the first time, films using generative AI tools will not be disqualified from the awards.
It’s a timely decision. As generative AI becomes more integrated into filmmaking, debates over creativity and authorship are intensifying. Writers’ strikes and fears of artistic displacement have dominated recent industry discussions.
But how do audiences feel about the use of AI in films? Our research suggests they may be more open to it than the industry might expect.
What the new rules say
The updated Oscars guidelines make it clear the use of generative AI will neither help, nor hinder, a film’s chances of nomination.
What matters is the degree to which people remain at the centre of the creative process. While AI tools can be part of the workflow, the judges will scrutinise the standard of human creative authorship in a given work.
This reflects broader shifts taking place in the film industry. AI tools are now embedded in many stages of production, including for high-profile and award-nominated films.
At this year’s Oscars, Adrien Brody won best actor for his performance in The Brutalist, which used generative AI to enhance the actor’s Hungarian dialogue. Emilia Pérez – the most nominated film, with 13 nods – also used AI-powered voice cloning in post-production.
The Oscars update isn’t introducing AI to Hollywood. It’s simply acknowledging the extent to which it is already in use.
Do audiences mind?
To understand how audiences respond to AI’s creative role in film, we conducted an experiment testing people’s reactions to AI-generated film ideas.
For our study, published in the Journal of Cultural Economics, we asked 500 US-based participants to rate AI-generated film “pitches” in terms of their anticipated enjoyment and likelihood of watching the film across different formats (such as cinema, online rental, or streaming).
Half of the participants were explicitly told the ideas were generated by AI, while the other half were not. Each AI-generated pitch included a synopsis, director, top-billed cast, genre, rating and runtime.
The results were clear. There was no systematic bias against AI-generated pitches. Ratings of anticipated enjoyment and likelihood of watching the films were broadly similar, regardless of whether the participants knew AI was involved.
AI-assisted versus AI-produced
It’s important to note our research focused on audience reactions to ideas – the initial pitch for a film – and not the final product. This distinction matters.
AI’s role was limited in our experiment. Human directors and cast members were implicitly part of each pitch, and there was no suggestion AI had written the full screenplay or contributed in other ways to the production of the final film.
As we note in our paper, AI’s limited involvement likely shaped participants’ responses. There was an implicit understanding that human creativity would remain central to the final product.
This aligns with broader evidence from other creative sectors. In the case of music and visual art, audiences tend to respond less favourably when they believe a work has been fully AI-generated.
Together, these findings suggest the middle ground may be the best approach. While audiences may be accepting of AI’s contribution to creative tasks such as idea generation, editing, and visual and audio effects, they still value human authorship and authenticity in the final product.
That is also the balance the Academy Awards seems to be aiming for. The new rules do not disqualify films for using AI. However, they emphasise that awards will go to works where humans remain at the heart of the creative process. For now, audiences appear to be comfortable with that approach, too.
What it means for the industry
Generative tools are becoming part of the mainstream production toolkit. And this raises important questions about creative labour, credit and compensation.
While our research suggests audiences may be open to AI-generated content, this doesn’t mean the industry can move forward without careful deliberation. The question is no longer whether AI will shape the future of film, but how – and who gets to decide the terms.
Read More: AI voice technology used in The Brutalist is nothing new – the backlash is about transparency
If AI is to complement, rather than diminish, the filmmaking process, it will be important to maintain clear standards and ethical guidelines around AI use, as well as a clear role for human authorship.
This includes transparency around how AI tools are used, and appropriate recognition for creative contributions – including for those whose work has been used to train generative AI systems.
The real test will be whether the industry can embrace AI without losing sight of the creative values that define it.
- is a Senior Lecturer, Department of Economics, Macquarie University
- is an Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Macquarie University
- This article first appeared in The Conversation
