By: Sarah Summer 

Artificial intelligence has moved from the margins of filmmaking into its infrastructure. It now plays a role in how films are developed, produced, marketed, and distributed, often long before an audience ever sees a frame. What remains unsettled is not whether AI belongs in film, but how it should be used and where the boundaries must be drawn.

Haily Fox has been engaging that question directly.

An AI consultant working across industries, Fox brings a rare combination of technical fluency and cultural awareness to the conversation. Her background includes film-adjacent work through Lamourie Media, where AI-supported research, audience analysis, and workflow optimization intersect with creative projects. She now works independently, advising organizations on how to integrate AI responsibly, without stripping away human judgment or creative control.

Rather than framing AI as either a threat or a solution, Fox treats it as a reality that requires literacy. That approach has resonated with readers of her widely read blog, Am I AI?, where she examines both the benefits and consequences of AI across sectors. One of her most circulated pieces, AI in Filmmaking: The Good, The Bad & The Inevitable, has drawn particular attention from creatives and industry professionals alike.

Seeing the Full Picture

Fox’s writing makes one thing clear early on: AI in film is not speculative.

“AI is increasingly being used in many fields, and AI in filmmaking is no exception,” she writes. From pre-production to marketing, she outlines how AI tools already support script analysis, location scouting, casting recommendations, editing workflows, visual effects, and distribution strategy.

In her analysis, Fox does not dismiss these uses. She acknowledges that AI can streamline production, reduce costs, and shorten timelines, especially for independent filmmakers and smaller studios. Tools that automate subtitling, assist with editing, or analyze box office data can free creative teams from repetitive tasks and allow them to focus on storytelling.

At the same time, she is careful to stress that usefulness does not equal neutrality.

“All of these things can be done while supporting the creative human elements of film, and without taking jobs,” she writes, before adding the crucial caveat: “With all this being said, we wouldn’t be having this conversation if the use of AI in film was a perfect, clear-cut process with no hiccups.”

Where the Industry Pushes Back

Fox’s credibility as a commentator comes from her willingness to confront the uncomfortable parts of AI adoption head-on.

Job displacement is one of the most visible pressure points. Writers, editors, and VFX artists have raised concerns as automation moves closer to core creative work. Fox points directly to the 2023 Writers Guild of America strike, which demanded protections against AI-written scripts and the use of writers’ work to train models without consent or compensation. That same year, SAG-AFTRA fought for safeguards against the unauthorized reuse of actors’ likenesses through digital scanning and replication.

These were not abstract fears, Fox argues, but responses to real practices already underway.

Ethical issues extend even further with the rise of deepfakes. Fox highlights the controversy surrounding the digital recreation of deceased actors and voice cloning, noting how unsettling it becomes when consent is no longer possible. She references the James Dean controversy and the deeply personal impact of non-consensual deepfakes involving Robin Williams.

Ownership, she notes, becomes murky when AI-generated content enters the picture, raising questions the industry has yet to answer clearly.

The Quality Problem Audiences Can Feel

Beyond labor and ethics, Fox addresses a quieter concern that audiences instinctively recognize: quality.

AI-generated visuals and edits can fall into what many now call “AI slop,” work that feels uncanny, generic, or emotionally flat. Fox points to reactions to projects where AI-driven imagery left viewers uneasy rather than impressed, noting how quickly audiences notice when something feels off.

Movies risk becoming formulaic, she warns, not because filmmakers lack creativity, but because overreliance on the same systems and datasets pushes projects toward sameness.

The issue is not that AI lacks technical sophistication. It is that it lacks human context, cultural nuance, and emotional instinct.

Environmental Costs and Hidden Trade-Offs

Fox also raises concerns that are still underrepresented in entertainment coverage: environmental impact.

AI-heavy workflows demand substantial energy and water resources. While she does not argue that AI alone is responsible for industry consolidation or environmental strain, she points out that these costs are often ignored when AI is framed as “efficient.”

Efficiency, she suggests, cannot be measured solely in terms of time or money.

Accepting What Comes Next

Despite the concerns, Fox is clear-eyed about the future.

“AI in filmmaking is here,” she writes. “The question is whether we’ll be passive observers or active participants in shaping its future in the industry.”

For Fox, preparation matters more than panic. She outlines what she believes must be prioritized going forward: informed consent, fair compensation for reused likenesses, transparency when AI is part of the creative process, worker protections, ethical training data practices, and industry-wide standards negotiated through unions and agreements.

She also points to meaningful progress. From the EU AI Act mandating disclosure of AI-generated content to California’s labeling requirements to Denmark’s landmark legislation granting individuals legal ownership of their likeness, Fox sees evidence that regulation can evolve alongside technology.

A Broader Industry Voice

While film has become a focal point for her commentary, Fox’s work extends far beyond entertainment. She advises businesses across sectors on AI integration, accessibility, and workflow design. Her broader thought leadership was recently recognized in the Wisdom From The Women Leading The AI Industry series, which highlighted her work in education, productivity, and ethical AI use.

Across her writing, Fox consistently resists extremes. She does not frame AI as a villain, nor as a miracle solution. Instead, she urges realism.

As she writes, “Regardless of the growing concerns and frustrations with AI in any field, it’s imperative that we at least admit to ourselves that ‘this is happening’ so that we can prepare.”

The Choice Still on the Table

Fox’s position ultimately comes down to agency.

The film industry does not get to decide whether AI exists within it. That decision has already been made. What remains open is whether AI will quietly reshape labor, authorship, and trust, or be guided by consent, transparency, and human-led decision-making.

Fox closes her essay with a reminder that resonates far beyond film: “The question isn’t whether AI will transform filmmaking — it’s how it will change it.”

For an industry built on human stories, that distinction may matter more than any technology itself.