Oscars Bans AI Actors and Writing From Awards 37
The Academy has clarified that only human-performed acting and human-authored writing are eligible for Oscar nominations. The Oscars will not ban AI tools broadly, but says it will judge films based on the degree to which humans remain central to the creative work. The BBC reports: The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences [...], which controls the US film industry's most prestigious award, on Friday issued updated rules for what kind of work in movies and documentaries would be considered eligible for an Oscar as the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technology grows. In updated eligibility requirements, the Academy specified that only acting "demonstrably performed by humans" and that writing "must be human-authored" in order to be nominated for an award. The Academy called the requirements a "substantive" change to the rules for the Oscars.
The need to specify awards can only go to acting and writing done by "humans" is new for the academy. [...] However, the academy did not issue a ban on AI use in films more broadly. Outside of acting and writing, if a filmmaker used AI tools in their work, such "tools neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination," the academy wrote. "The Academy and each branch will judge the achievement, taking into account the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship when choosing which movie to award," the group added. "If questions arise regarding the aforementioned use of generative artificial intelligence, the Academy reserves the right to request more information about the nature of the use and human authorship."
The need to specify awards can only go to acting and writing done by "humans" is new for the academy. [...] However, the academy did not issue a ban on AI use in films more broadly. Outside of acting and writing, if a filmmaker used AI tools in their work, such "tools neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination," the academy wrote. "The Academy and each branch will judge the achievement, taking into account the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship when choosing which movie to award," the group added. "If questions arise regarding the aforementioned use of generative artificial intelligence, the Academy reserves the right to request more information about the nature of the use and human authorship."
Using AI actors or writing is a misuse of the tech (Score:2)
We already have actors and writers who do what they do perfectly.
We need AI to do stuff we can't do
Re: (Score:2)
if you wouldn't notice maybe consider what you are watching crap?
Sorry, movies used to suck even worse. (Score:4)
Serious question: Do we actually prefer current screen writing to be something worth protecting? It's really not that dissimilar to much of software, where the entire production process has been so corporatized and dumbed/mellowed down that you might replace any individual contributor with AI without anyone noticing. Or all of them for what I care.
You're not making a serious and sincere question. You're stating you opinion and your agenda. If you think screenwriting is terrible today, you're forgetting how badly it sucked before. Aliens may be my favorite movie, definitely a great movie, few would disagree, but remember how many shitty movies were released in 1986? Howard the Duck and Cobra were no masterpieces. 2026 is an intellectual utopia compared to 1986. Regarding corporatization? I assume you're talking about Marvel? Well, Top Gun is a literal ad for the US Navy...massive hit in 1984 as well as 2022. I found it entertaining, but it was a fucking ad. Most children's programs were toy ads. The Super Mario Brothers movie from 2023 was FAAAR superior to the one from 1993. I am pretty confident the Street Fighter movie coming out this year will be superior to the one from the 90s. Mortal Kombat?...OK, that was a downgrade...because the original was stupid, shitty, silly fun....and the newest one tried to be high quality...a mistake from not understanding your audience. However, it's fair to say they're closer to commercials than
Regarding AI. If you think that will make no difference?...no, you don't understand AI. It's a pattern matching tool. All movies will look the same, dialog will be awful unless heavily doctored. AI can write a decent short story, but will fall down writing a large piece. There will be TONS of errors and bad and confusing sentences and weird hallucinations. The best case scenario for LLM-based AIs is just averaging a bunch of screenplays....it will be noticeably more uniform and corporate and stale and tame....lacking in originality or creativity.
I think the Oscars committee made the right call. It has always been a celebration of human accomplishment. I don't think AI accomplishments belong in the same awards criteria.
Is it? (Score:3)
We already have actors and writers who do what they do perfectly.
Do they? People want actors and writers that will do it for less money and those seem to be in short supply.
We need AI to do stuff we can't do
This is not how technology has traditionally been used.
* Car destroyed the horse market
* The printing press put scribes out of work
* Photocopy machines put typists out of work
* Computers eliminated the card catalog
* Electronic synthesizers are steadily eliminating the use of musical instruments
Why did these all happen? Because they are cheaper solutions to problems that were already solved. So tell me
Re: (Score:2)
I am letting AI do that... for stuff that I personally can't do. I've had AI design logos, make short clips, draw cartoons, create avatars for online use, write and perform music. I can't draw, sing or perform for crap, and since this is all for various hobbies, I can't afford the humans who can do all that either.
Re: (Score:2)
But I can't pay those actors to be in my super-niche-but-interesting-to-me movie. I can definitely have AI do it, though.
How is AI different than animated film? (Score:2)
With respect to the "writer", sure, that is more novel.
Re: (Score:2)
Who defines what's the "correct use" of the tech?
Why? If it's slop? (Score:4, Insightful)
If everything AI produces is crap or slop content, why would you need to ban it from receiving awards? I see this as a tacit admission that Hollywood is worried about the quality being good or eventually better than humans, in certain situations.
The real solution would be a AI categories.
To avoid it from sneaking in. (Score:3)
If everything AI produces is crap or slop content, why would you need to ban it from receiving awards?
We always judge real accomplishments with more reverence than fake ones. A real car chase is a much more impressive accomplishment than CGI. Should there be another category? I am fine with that. I don't know who to credit an AI script with. Should a prompt monkey get an award? Claude? The Oscars committee decided to ensure we're celebrating humans, not AIs. I think that's wise, but regardless, this is their industry. When it doubt, I'll let people in the industry decide what's best...just as I don
Re: (Score:2)
"If everything AI produces is crap or slop content, why would you need to ban it from receiving awards? "
The theater would look rather empty and how is AI supposed to slap presenters if they make fun of their data-center's missing roof?
Re: (Score:2)
They are free to ban whatever they want. I am interested in AI movies (just as in other movies), but I think the Oscars are free to make rules. I just may then also look for what other awards are rewarded to extraordinary AI movies to find the good ones.
Racists (Score:2, Funny)
You meatbags think you're so special. This is the Hollywood Blacklist all over again.
Re:AI is the master of DEI. DEI cheats with AI any (Score:5, Insightful)
Got it. You're in your basement, unable to get a job because you're too stupid and incompetent, and imagine they'd hire you instead of "girl bosses" - you can't get along with anyone, and dream that you're better than any woman.
And fucking lying POS FASCISM IS RIGHT WING. The fascist fought the communists - in Spain, in Germany, in Italy. Your bullshit that you are the good guys... yeah, why haven't you risen up to protect us from fascism (like ICE)? Because your a racist mysogynist.
Re: (Score:2)
This dude's brain was broken by Obama. Before that he was a normal nerd.
Re:AI is the master of DEI. DEI cheats with AI any (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, don't lump us stupid and incompetent basement dwellers in with those fascist assholes!
History repeats itself (Score:4, Interesting)
Synthesized music, CGI... all initially rejected.
But AI is somewhat different in that it directly threatens the income of the entire film industry.
Once AI has advanced further, no one will want these “physical” actors who perform more or less well in films with questionable scripts.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you could make the same argument for all AI.
i would. curious, why wouldn't you?
Re: (Score:2)
In the 19th century, photography was seen as "mechanical" not true art (like paintings).
Synthesized music, CGI... all initially rejected.
But AI is somewhat different in that it directly threatens the income of the entire film industry.
but, but ... think of the actors!!!
btw i don't think ai is fundamentaly different from any previous disruptive technology in this regard. heavy interest groups fight until they have repositioned, some don't know better and fight to the bitter end. they have money enough to buy politicians or even judges and bombard "public opinion" 24/7 but their expiration is certain nonetheless.
Once AI has advanced further, no one will want these “physical” actors who perform more or less well in films with questionable scripts.
i have to disagree with this too. good and genuine acting and storytelling is still appreciated by some people, and always will.
We'll still have the theatre, live performances (Score:1)
but, but ... think of the actors!!!
We'll still have the theatre, live performances.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the same. With AI, you give away all artistic control and become the client. If I pay somebody to make me an image, I'm not an artist, no matter how well I describe the content (ok maybe if description is too good, maybe I'd be an author). It's turning from a creator to a consumer.
Robot Oscars (Score:3)
I guess Calculon will never win an Oscar.
who here cares? honest question ... (Score:3)
besides the own industry's endogamic fixation and fuss with the yearly oscars charade, does anybody here still give a crap about it?
Because awards are for people. (Score:3)
It seems pretty obvious that you wouldn't give an award to a machine because there is simply no purpose in it. How would that even work? Would someone bring up a server rack to the stage? This is really a no-brainer.
Near term / long term (Score:3)
For the near term, you can look at this rule as a statement: "AI actors and scripts suck, so don't even bother trying." And they're probably right. They don't want to get deluged with crap submissions any more than open-source repo maintainers want to get deluged with vibe-coded garbage pull requests.
But it is entirely possible that AI movies will not always suck. There may (probably will) be a day when people start to really enjoy AI-scripted movies with AI-rendered actors. (Iran's Lego-world propaganda music videos are kind of amazing. As is the fact that a repressive regime is producing cutting-edge media. But that's another topic for another time.)
At the point, this rule will just be an artifact of a clique of artisans who want to defend their prestige against a disruptive technology. Like horse-drawn-chariot race officials declaring that motorcar builders are not welcome to enter their races.
Another organizing body will spring up, and it will cater to the desires of producers and consumers who appreciate the new technology.