Read other stories from the "These stories were not AI-generated" special edition here.
UF film professor Ben Vollmer is no stranger to receiving AI-generated works in his class. They all share one thing in common, he said: They’re boring.
“People, I think, generally speaking, broadly speaking, like things that are created by humans, if only because they like the idea of things being created by people,” Vollmer said.
An anti-AI stigma has developed among students, Vollmer said, and a research paper he co-authored found stories attributed to AI authors were perceived as less enjoyable.
His observations reflect a general apprehension toward AI-generated work across UF film students and faculty. While acknowledging the technology may reduce tedious managerial work, many pointed out machine-created movies can’t replicate the innate “soul” found in human creation.
In his classes, Vollmer said, he encourages student filmmakers to avoid the “easy way” and to try making their films without the assistance of AI models, even if the task may seem daunting.
“It's only possible with AI because it was possible with humans first,” he said.
Because AI scrapes prior work from the internet, its output comprises an amalgamation of “everything and everybody's thoughts,” Vollmer said. The result, he said, is “milquetoast” work that lacks innovation and creativity — and that just isn’t interesting to him.
Automating film isn’t entirely new, though. The rise of artificial intelligence reminds UF film professor Pietro Bianchi of the introduction of photography.
When photography was introduced, Bianchi pointed out, many argued the mechanical nature of a camera made it less artistic than a canvas and a paintbrush. No longer was every detail mediated by the artist.
“I think that there is something that is profoundly machinic in filmmaking that has always been there,” Bianchi said. “AI is just increasing the scale of this.”
But Bianchi’s views on AI aren’t all sympathetic. As AI may introduce more machinery into art, he said he’s questioning the means by which large models are trained.
These models often draw from large amounts of data scraped from the internet, oftentimes without regard for copyright.
The advent of AI films also calls into question why audiences go to the cinema in the first place, Bianchi said: Are films simply a means of entertainment, or are they a reflection of human souls?
Bianchi argues the latter.
“I think that films are cultural objects that have revealed something that sometimes, in empirical reality, are not really visible,” Bianchi said.
Films can act as a cultural mirror, revealing the desires and ideals of their creators and society, Bianchi said. These nuances are destroyed when there isn’t a human behind its creation. The film no longer reflects a human soul, but rather the code of a language model.
Some proponents of AI in the filmmaking space say the tool can be used to cut down on busywork — tasks that would typically be reserved for an assistant. This way, no creative roles are being taken by AI.
However, even this use of generative models can have some unforeseen consequences, said Zoe Thaxton, a 21-year-old UF history and media production, management and technology junior.
While replacing seemingly menial jobs with AI models might appear to be a wise cost-cutting decision, it can have a cascading effect that limits new filmmakers from creating crucial connections early in their careers, she said.
“In the film world, a lot of intro to jobs are these assistant jobs,” Thaxton said. “The assistant jobs are really what get you into the career.”
Contact Christopher Rodriguez at crodriguez@alligator.org. Follow him on X @ChrisRodri29386.
