“This future looking like a nightmare”: OpenAI announces feature-length AI-generated film, “Critterz,” and nobody wants this

Plans for an AI-generated film called Critterz is earning sharp backlash online after the announcement hit the internet earlier this week.

What is Critterz?

It was announced on Sunday that OpenAI is getting involved in an upcoming feature-length animated film that will be largely created with AI. 

The film, Critterz, is based on a short by OpenAI "creative specialist" Chad Nelson, about forest creatures who go on an adventure. But the concept isn't what's drawing attention. It's the fact that this is a major foray into filmmaking driven by AI, in an attempt to make a movie faster and cheaper than would normally take place within the Hollywood studio system.

Critterz is aiming to have a budget of $30 million and to be completed within nine months—an absurdly rapid turnaround for an animated project. The people behind it hope that it will premiere at the prestigious Cannes Film Festival next year.

Vertigo Films and Native Foreign are also involved.

Will Critterz be entirely AI-generated?

The twist here is that while it seems as though the actual animation for Critterz will all be AI-generated, other aspects won't.

The script was written by "some members of the team that wrote Paddington in Peru," although it wasn't specified which ones. WSJ also says that humans will "create the art that will be fed into AI tools," and that a search for voice actors is underway. 

Technically, all of these things could be done by AI as well. So why aren't they? 

The answer is most likely a simple one: copyright.

There's still a lot of murkiness surrounding the ability to copyright AI-generated content, but generally, something that's been entirely generated by AI cannot be copyrighted in the US. Something that has involved a certain amount of human contribution or revision, on the other hand, can.

It may seem like a cynical way of looking at a film that will technically still be employing artists and actors, but when the entire purpose seems to be to churn out cheaper content more quickly while slashing jobs, it's difficult to jump to any other conclusion.

AI movie immediately draws backlash

The fact that this was announced in The Wall Street Journal rather than the usual places entertainment news is announced, like Deadline or The Hollywood Reporter, or even a tech-based website, is certainly suggestive. 

"This is obvious investor bait, and will suck unbelievable amounts of shit," one X user wrote.

Nelson himself gave this statement about the film: "OpenAI can say what its tools do all day long, but it’s much more impactful if someone does it. That’s a much better case study than me building a demo."

While tech bros are undoubtedly slapping each other on the back over this "advancement," the average person who engages with stories and art for, you know, a human experience and connection is significantly less thrilled. And they were not shy about sharing their opinions across social media.

Some people took aim at the fact that the budget is still anticipated to be $30 million, pointing out both that Hollywood could simply invest more in mid-budget films made by humans and that this doesn't feel like the slam-dunk financial gain some have insisted AI will bring.

Others simply aired their frustration with people not only trying to replace art with AI, but insisting it's still art.

Some people just straight up wanted to dunk on the whole thing, and honestly, they're so valid for that.

The internet is chaotic—but we’ll break it down for you in one daily email. Sign up for the Daily Dot’s newsletter here.