Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Movies AI The 2000 Beanies

Oscars Bans AI Actors and Writing From Awards 50

Posted by BeauHD from the humans-only dept.
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."

Oscars Bans AI Actors and Writing From Awards More | Reply

Oscars Bans AI Actors and Writing From Awards

Comments Filter:

  • We already have actors and writers who do what they do perfectly.
    We need AI to do stuff we can't do

    • 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

    • "We need AI to do stuff we can't do"
      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.

      • "We need AI to do stuff we can't do" 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.

        I'd imagine for younger movie actresses, the definition of "stuff we can't do" might boil down to their penchant to degrade themselves. Since the OF competition is more than willing to completely replace them by any means necessary.

        Not quite the same-same challenges in life. Can't remember a hobby of mine that came with a casting couch, thankfully.

    • 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.

    • With respect to the "actor", how is AI different than animated film? We've already migrated from hand drawn and painted to CGI. It seems the only change is human guided CGI vs AI guided CGI?

      With respect to the "writer", sure, that is more novel.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by allo ( 1728082 )

      Who defines what's the "correct use" of the tech?

  • Why? If it's slop? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Larry_Dillon ( 20347 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {yrral.nollid}> on Tuesday May 05, 2026 @01:06PM (#66128934) Homepage

    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.

    • 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

    • "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)

      by allo ( 1728082 )

      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.

    • Because it takes effort to wade through the slop and discard it. Slop is a form of spam, it is easy to create quickly, and it is difficult to detect without spending some resources. By banning it outright the slop merchants are forewarned so that the nice ones don't deliberately spam the awards. The bad ones will have to be named and shamed and barred from future awards for 10 years.

    • 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.

      Hollywood is in a real Catch-22 of their own making. Even the best plastic surgeons can't defeat Father Time from wearing down the most beautiful faces meant for the biggest silver screens. Faces that Hollywood themselves pushed for and demanded remain "flawless" for a narcissistic fan base trained on filtering life into nothing but flawless perfection as the "norm".

      AI, is the natural solution for that plastic artificial problem.

      The real solution would be a AI categories.

      Once the award is presented to GotchaBitchAI for the Fooled Every Human chall

  • Racists (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    You meatbags think you're so special. This is the Hollywood Blacklist all over again.

  • History repeats itself (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hcs_$reboot ( 1536101 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2026 @02:07PM (#66129056)
    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.
    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)

      by znrt ( 2424692 )

      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.

    • 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)

    by TwistedGreen ( 80055 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2026 @02:14PM (#66129070)

    I guess Calculon will never win an Oscar.

  • who here cares? honest question ... (Score:3)

    by znrt ( 2424692 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2026 @02:27PM (#66129104)

    besides the own industry's endogamic fixation and fuss with the yearly oscars charade, does anybody here still give a crap about it?

    • Well, some people do. Lots of people watch the Oscars for various reasons. Personally, I don't care at all which studio's marketing department did the best job of convincing the Academy members to vote their way. I didn't care much before I found out that's how it works, and now I care nothing.

  • Because awards are for people. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2026 @02:59PM (#66129174)

    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.

    • I would like to see the 1982 Tron Movie given its due rewards, but the judges thought that since a computer rendered the picture, that it had no creativity, so it was denied any awards.
      • And 11 years later, Jurassic Park won Oscars for its effects. Tron did deserve a nomination, but if you look at the competition it isn't certain that it would have won. E.T won best VFX in '82, competing with Blade Runner and Poltergeist.

  • Near term / long term (Score:3)

    by Tschaine ( 10502969 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2026 @03:19PM (#66129200)

    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.

  • Mickey Mouse and Charlie McCarthy (a ventriloquist's dummy).

    But, whatever. I don't really care.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.

Close