The Oscars just made headlines worldwide, and this time the topic is serious: the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences updated its eligibility rules and made it crystal clear that acting and screenwriting done by artificial intelligence are out of the running.
Only work created by actual humans can compete for one of the most coveted statuettes in world cinema.
This decision didn’t come out of nowhere. It arrives at a time when Hollywood is increasingly surrounded by AI tools, from actors being digitally recreated to scripts generated by algorithms, and that has sparked a massive debate about what it actually means to create something.
The Academy called the changes substantive alterations to the rules, which shows this isn’t just any routine update. It’s a clear stance on the future of filmmaking 🎬.
In this article, you’ll learn:
- What exactly changed in the Oscar rules
- Why this decision happened now
- What’s still allowed with AI in productions
- Real cases that set off alarm bells in the industry
- And what the difference is between AI and the CGI that cinema has been using for decades
Let’s get into it 👇
What changed in the Oscar rules
The Academy got straight to the point: in acting categories, the performance must be demonstrably performed by humans. This means that if a character was built or completed by artificial intelligence tools in a significant way, that performance cannot compete for the award. It doesn’t matter how convincing the final result looks on screen — the creative process needs to originate from a flesh-and-blood human being, with real emotional and artistic choices behind every scene.
Receive the best innovation content in your email.
All the news, tips, trends, and resources you're looking for, delivered to your inbox.
By subscribing to the newsletter, you agree to receive communications from Método Viral. We are committed to always protecting and respecting your privacy.
When it comes to screenwriting, the logic is the same. The rule now requires the text to be of human authorship. Both the Original Screenplay and Adapted Screenplay categories demand that this authorship be verifiable and central to the process. A script that was largely generated by a language model or any other generative AI tool simply doesn’t qualify for the Oscar race. The Academy made it clear that what’s being awarded is human creative expression, not a machine’s computational ability to mimic that expression with high fidelity.
The need to specify that awards can only go to acting and screenwriting done by humans is unprecedented for the Academy. Not long ago, this would have been so obvious it wouldn’t need to be stated. The fact that a formal rule now exists about this shows just how far artificial intelligence has advanced and how much pressure the industry feels to respond.
It’s worth noting that these changes are part of a larger package of eligibility rule revisions the Academy published on Friday, covering both fiction films and documentaries. What used to be vague guidelines about the use of technology in cinema now has much sharper contours. The organization is essentially drawing a line in the sand and saying: there’s a limit to how far technology can go when it comes to recognizing human talent in film.
The cases that set off alarm bells in Hollywood
To understand why the Academy felt the need to act, just look at a few recent events that shook the film industry. One of the most notable involves actor Val Kilmer, who passed away in 2025. Even after his death, AI technology will be used to digitally recreate him in a leading role in a film currently in production. The idea of a deceased actor starring in a feature film thanks to artificial intelligence raised deep questions about consent, artistic legacy, and the ethical boundaries of this technology.
Another case that generated plenty of discussion involved actress and comedian Eline van der Velden, based in London, who created a completely fictional AI-generated actor with the stated goal of turning it into a global star. We’re talking about a character that doesn’t exist in the real world, has no body, no lived human experiences, but could theoretically appear in films and compete for industry recognition. This called into question everything that traditional cinema represents as a form of human artistic expression.
And you can’t talk about this topic without remembering the historic Hollywood writers’ strike in 2023. When the union representing American screenwriters, the WGA (Writers Guild of America), decided to walk off the job, one of the central issues in the dispute was the use of AI to write scripts. Professionals feared that studios would start using language models to produce scripts at rock-bottom costs, eliminating or drastically reducing the need to hire human writers. The strike lasted months and resulted in agreements that included specific protections against the unchecked use of AI in the creative process.
These episodes, combined with dozens of lawsuits filed by studios, actors, and authors against AI companies for copyright infringement, created a sense of urgency the Academy couldn’t ignore. The foundation of all language models, or LLMs, is precisely the content created by humans over decades — texts, images, and videos that were used to train these tools. The question of who truly is the author when AI generates something based on that training continues to be debated in courts and now also in the Oscar rules.
What’s still allowed with AI in productions
It’s important not to confuse what the Academy is prohibiting with a total ban on artificial intelligence in Oscar-nominated productions. The organization did not ban the use of AI in films across the board. Outside of the acting and screenwriting categories, if a filmmaker used AI tools in their work, those tools neither help nor hurt their chances of earning a nomination, according to the Academy’s own words.
This means that visual effects, AI-assisted musical score composition, automated color correction, smart subtitling, and various aspects of post-production continue to be accepted without specific restrictions. What the Academy is drawing boundaries around is the use of AI in the dimensions it considers the essence of human artistic expression in cinema.
An actor’s performance carries with it decades of study, life experiences, emotional vulnerability, and instinctive choices that are part of who that person is. In the same way, a quality screenplay carries the worldview, fears, dreams, and unique voice of the person who wrote it. These are the dimensions the Oscar wants to preserve as exclusively human, regardless of the technological advances that keep happening all around.
The Academy also made it clear that it will evaluate each case by considering the degree to which a human being was at the center of creative authorship when deciding which film to award. And it went further: if questions arise about the use of generative artificial intelligence in any production, the organization reserves the right to request more information about the nature of its use and the human authorship involved. In other words, it’s not enough to simply say the work is human — you may need to prove it.
Another relevant point is that the Academy signaled it intends to keep revising these rules as technology evolves. This means what’s being defined now isn’t necessarily set in stone, but it is a foundation of principles that should guide the upcoming award seasons. Production companies and creators are already adapting to this new reality, working to understand exactly where the line is drawn to make sure their films and performances are eligible when nomination time comes around.
AI versus CGI: what’s the real difference here
A question a lot of people have when this subject comes up is: cinema has been using CGI for decades and it was never a problem. Why is artificial intelligence different? The answer lies in the level of creative autonomy each technology exercises in the process.
CGI, or Computer Generated Imagery, has been part of filmmaking since the 1990s and is widely considered a manual process. When an animator creates a photorealistic dinosaur or a visual effects supervisor builds a fantastical world, every aesthetic decision, every texture, every movement was thought out and directed by people. The computer simply processes and renders what the human imagined and instructed. It’s a powerful tool, no doubt, but one that depends entirely on human creative direction to function.
Generative AI, on the other hand, operates in a fundamentally different way. It’s capable of producing content — whether text, image, video, or audio — from relatively simple instructions, known as prompts, without a human needing to make every creative decision along the way. When you ask a language model to write a screenplay or use a voice synthesis tool to recreate an actor’s speech, the machine is making creative decisions autonomously, based on patterns learned from previous human works. It’s exactly this autonomy that worries the industry and that the Academy wants to keep out of the acting and screenwriting categories.
This distinction is critical for understanding the broader debate about human authorship in the age of AI. It’s not about being against technology, but about recognizing that there’s a qualitative difference between using a tool to amplify human expression and delegating the expression itself to a machine. The Oscars, by making this distinction in their rules, are contributing to a conversation that goes far beyond cinema and affects writers, musicians, visual artists, and every creative field dealing with the sweeping arrival of artificial intelligence in professional life 🤖🎥.
What this means for the future of the industry
The Academy’s decision doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It joins a growing movement of creative organizations, unions, and even governments around the world that are trying to set clear rules for the use of AI in content production. The Oscars are undeniably one of the most influential awards on the planet, and when the Academy takes a stand of this magnitude, the ripple effect is enormous. Other award shows, film festivals, distributors, and streaming platforms tend to watch closely and, in many cases, follow suit.
For industry professionals, the message is fairly clear: technology can and will continue being part of the filmmaking process, but the highest artistic recognition remains reserved for those who create with their own hands, their own voice, and their own mind. Screenwriters can breathe a little easier knowing their craft is being protected at the highest level of recognition, and actors can rest assured that their real performances won’t be equated with digital recreations when it comes time to compete for a statuette.
On the other hand, this debate is far from over. As AI models grow more sophisticated and the line between technological assistance and creative replacement becomes harder to identify, the Academy will need to revisit these rules frequently. The organization itself acknowledged this by signaling that it reserves the right to request clarification about the use of generative AI in any production. This is still uncharted territory, and every new award season will bring fresh challenges and new questions.
What we can say with confidence is that the Oscars have picked a side in this debate — at least for now. And that side is the human being as the center of artistic creation in cinema.
The Academy’s decision comes at the right time and sets an important precedent: in an era of rapidly advancing artificial intelligence, recognizing and protecting human authorship isn’t a backward-looking move — it’s a statement of values that the global creative market needed to hear loud and clear.
