It’s Oscar night, 2026. The Dolby Theatre is buzzing with sequined gowns, nervous nominees, and the usual mix of glitz and gravitas. A film with jaw-dropping visuals and a script that feels eerily perfect is up for Best Picture. Then, whispers ripple through the crowd: Did AI write that dialogue? Were those visuals generated by a neural network? The Academy’s answer, as of their latest rule changes announced in 2025, is a nonchalant shrug: Doesn’t matter, as long as a human was steering the ship.

In a move that’s both progressive and provocative, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has officially acknowledged generative AI in its eligibility guidelines for the Oscars. But instead of clamping down with restrictions or demanding transparency, they’ve taken a surprisingly chill stance: using AI won’t help or hurt a film’s chances of snagging a nomination. The catch? The Academy wants to know that a human was at the heart of the creative process. It’s a stance that’s raising eyebrows, sparking debates, and signaling a seismic shift in how Hollywood grapples with the rise of artificial intelligence.

The new rule: AI’s fine, humans rule

The Academy’s updated guidelines, released in April 2025, include a brief but loaded passage on AI:

With regard to Generative Artificial Intelligence and other digital tools used in the making of the film, the tools neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination. 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 when choosing which movie to award.

This is the first time the Oscars have explicitly addressed AI in their rulebook, and it’s a big deal. As The New York Times reported, the Academy briefly considered going further—potentially requiring filmmakers to disclose whether AI was used in their projects. That idea was scrapped, leaving us with a rule that’s more philosophical than prescriptive. It’s less about policing AI and more about trusting voters to weigh the human spark behind a film’s creation.

This hands-off approach is a departure from the fears that have gripped Hollywood since generative AI tools like ChatGPT, DALL-E, and Midjourney started making waves. The 2023 Hollywood strikes, led by the Writers Guild of America (WGA) and SAG-AFTRA, weren’t just about pay or working conditions—they were a battle cry against the looming threat of AI displacing writers, actors, and other creatives. Writers worried about studios using AI to churn out scripts on the cheap. Actors fretted over digital doubles that could perform in their place, forever. The strikes ended with hard-won protections, like requirements that studios get consent before using an actor’s likeness in AI-generated content. But the Academy’s new rule suggests a different vibe: AI’s here, it’s not going away, and we’re not going to sweat it.

Hollywood’s AI anxiety

To understand why this rule change is such a lightning rod, let’s rewind. Generative AI—tech that can create text, images, music, or even entire scenes from a simple prompt—has been a double-edged sword for the film industry. On one hand, it’s a game-changer. Directors like Gareth Edwards, who helmed the 2023 sci-fi flick The Creator, have praised AI tools for democratizing filmmaking, allowing smaller teams to craft visuals that rival big-budget blockbusters. Indie filmmakers are using AI to generate concept art, tweak scripts, or even create eerie soundscapes without breaking the bank. A 2024 report from Variety noted that over 30% of independent filmmakers surveyed had experimented with AI tools, citing cost savings and creative freedom.

On the other hand, AI’s rise has fueled existential dread. The 2023 strikes laid bare the industry’s fears: that studios, ever-hungry for efficiency, might lean too heavily on AI, sidelining human talent. A 2024 study by the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Inclusion Initiative found that 68% of industry professionals—writers, actors, and crew—worried AI could reduce job opportunities, especially for entry-level roles. Actors like Keanu Reeves have spoken out, with Reeves saying in 2024 that he’s “concerned about the erosion of human creativity” if AI becomes a crutch. Even Tom Hanks, America’s cinematic dad, mused in a New York Times op-ed last year that AI could “make every movie feel like a cover band of the real thing.”

The Academy’s rule sidesteps these tensions, opting for neutrality. By neither banning AI nor requiring disclosure, they’re saying: We trust our voters to know brilliance when they see it, AI or not. But that trust comes with questions. How do you measure “human creative authorship”? Is it the director who prompts an AI to generate a scene? The writer who polishes an AI-drafted script? The artist who tweaks a machine-made visual? The Academy’s vagueness leaves room for interpretation—and, potentially, controversy.

Other Oscar rule changes

AI wasn’t the only topic on the Academy’s 2025 agenda. They also rolled out a new requirement for voters: to participate in the final round of Oscar voting, members must certify that they’ve watched all nominated films in a given category. It’s a bid to ensure fairness, addressing long-standing gripes that some voters skip films or vote based on buzz alone. But as The Los Angeles Times pointed out, it’s an honor-system rule. Voters just check a box saying they’ve done their homework—no proof required. In an industry where time is tight and screeners pile up, it’s anyone’s guess how many will actually comply.

Another tweak: the Academy expanded eligibility for international features, allowing films to qualify even if they’re not in the submitting country’s official language, as long as they’re “culturally authentic.” This could open the door for diaspora filmmakers or co-productions, but it’s the AI rule that’s stealing the spotlight.

Oscars in the AI era

So, what does this mean for the future of the Oscars? For one, it’s a green light for filmmakers to experiment with AI without fear of being penalized. We might see more films like Everything Everywhere All At Once (2022), which used cutting-edge tech to pull off its multiverse visuals, or The Creator, which leaned on AI-assisted workflows to craft its dystopian world.

But the Academy’s laissez-faire stance also raises risks. Without disclosure requirements, voters might not know how heavily AI was used in a film. Could a movie that’s 90% AI-generated win Best Original Screenplay? Would that feel fair to writers who toiled over every word? And what about audiences? A 2024 survey found that 57% of moviegoers want to know if AI was used in a film’s production, especially for scripts or performances. The Academy’s silence on transparency might clash with public sentiment.

Then there’s the bigger picture: what does “human creativity” mean in an AI-saturated world? Philosophers and techies have been duking it out over this for years. In a 2024 Nature article, cognitive scientist Margaret Boden argued that AI can amplify human creativity but lacks the emotional depth and intentionality of a human artist. Yet, tools like OpenAI’s Sora, which can generate hyper-realistic video from text prompts, are blurring that line. If a director uses Sora to craft a scene that moves audiences to tears, does it matter if the pixels were born in a neural network?

The Academy’s new rule is less a verdict on AI and more a reflection of the times: Hollywood is in uncharted territory, and no one’s quite sure where this tech will take us. By staying neutral, the Oscars are hedging their bets, letting filmmakers and voters figure it out. It’s a bold move, but not without pitfalls. As AI tools get better and cheaper, the line between human and machine creativity will only get fuzzier, and the Academy might need to revisit this rule sooner than they think.

For now, the message is clear: the Oscars are open to the AI era, but they’re betting on humans to keep the soul in the story. Whether that bet pays off will depend on the films—and the debates—that light up the red carpet in the years to come.