Why Ben Affleck is Probably Wrong

Glossing Over the Likely Effects of GenAI on Hollywood

Starting April 2025, all full posts, including archived posts, will be available on my Substack, The Mediator.

When a lot of people ask me the same question, it’s usually a good indication it’s worth writing about. Over the last week, many have asked what I thought of Ben Affleck’s comments at the recent CNBC Delivering Alpha conference about the effect of AI on Hollywood.

Many pundits have opined about the implications of AI for Hollywood over the last year or two. Affleck’s comments struck a chord. Maybe that’s because we’re at that point in the AI hype cycle where the public is primed for a skeptical take. Maybe it’s because he’s Ben Affleck. Or maybe because he’s one of the few Hollywood luminaries who’s been willing to venture a specific view about AI, not just vague platitudes. But, whatever the reasons, they did.

Bilawal Sidhu, who posted a clip of Affleck’s conversation on X/Twitter, wrote that it was “[f]inally a grounded take on AI & filmmaking from a Hollywood A-lister.” Jori Lallo posted that he “[d]idn’t expect Ben Affleck to have the most articulate and realistic explanation where video models and Hollywood is going.” Affleck’s comments were also widely covered in the press, like here, here and here.

Below, I distill what he said, where I think he’s right and why his overall conclusion is probably wrong.

Tl;dr:

• Affleck essentially dismisses GenAI as a sustaining innovation in Hollywood, something that will enable Hollywood to create “more shows” for the “same spend” and could represent a “new revenue stream.”
• His logic is that AI can’t create art or replace actors, but will reduce costs by ~30% by eliminating “laborious” tasks like VFX. It will also enable fan creation and personalization, for which IP owners should be able to charge.
• I agree with many of his points but think his overall conclusion is wrong. GenAI is more likely to be a disruptive innovation than a sustaining one.
• The notion that “AI can’t make art” — and the implication that therefore anything made with AI can’t compete with Hollywood — is a red herring. Maybe AI can’t autonomously make art, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t an artistic tool.
• GenAI may not displace actors in many genres, but many of the most successful TV show and film genres make little use of (undoctored) actors, like animation, sci-fi, fantasy and horror.
• Moreover, GenAI doesn’t need to replace actors to dramatically lower costs. Above the line costs are less than 20% of most projects. Animation is the canary in the coal mine, where there is growing evidence GenAI will bring down costs by ~90%.
• Most important, Hollywood is not competing in a closed system, so the risk of lower entry barriers is not just “more shows.” It is already under assault from creator content and GenAI may accelerate that disruption.
• In other words, the risk is less that Hollywood will replace people with AI, it is more that AI will hasten the displacement of Hollywood.
• Affleck deserves credit as one of the few in Hollywood willing to go on record about a controversial topic. But Hollywood is already a place that resists change. Downplaying the potential effect of GenAI won’t help.

Click here to continue reading the full post on my Substack, The Mediator.