The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has released updated rules for the 98th Oscars, and the takeaway is simple: when it comes to generative AI, the Academy chooses not to choose. “The tools neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination,” the new guidelines state. “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.”
This hands-off approach is both fascinating and fraught. On one hand, it acknowledges the growing role of AI and digital tools in filmmaking without triggering the politically explosive debates that rocked Hollywood just months ago. (AI anxiety helped fuel the historic strikes by the WGA and SAG-AFTRA.)
Creatively, I support any storytelling technology that empowers filmmakers to bring their visions to life, but is it right to ignore the elephant above the line? This isn’t just a policy footnote; it’s a cultural moment. If the Academy’s job is to honour artistic excellence, can it really stay neutral on tools that may redefine authorship itself?
As always your thoughts and comments are both welcome and encouraged. Just reply to this email. -s
Shelly Palmer is the Professor of Advanced Media in Residence at Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications and CEO of The Palmer Group, a consulting practice that helps Fortune 500 companies with technology, media and marketing. Named LinkedIn’s “Top Voice in Technology,” he covers tech and business for Good Day New York, is a regular commentator on CNN and writes a popular daily business blog. He's a bestselling author, and the creator of the popular, free online course, Generative AI for Execs. Follow @shellypalmer or visit shellypalmer.com.
