Hollywood vs AI 2025
Hollywood vs AI 2025: SAG-AFTRA strike, AI actors replacing humans, screenwriters vs ChatGPT. The entertainment industry meltdown.
Key Findings
Which brand leads in AI visibility and mentions.
SAG-AFTRA dominates AI visibility surging with 58.8% growth
AI Recommendation
Brands most often recommended by AI models
SAG-AFTRA
Top Choice
6/6
Models Agree
Popularity Ranking
Overall ranking based on AI brand mentions
SAG-AFTRA
Rank #1
10/17
Total Analyzed Answers
Trending Mentions
Recent shifts in AI model responses
SAG-AFTRA
Rising Star
58.8%
Growth Rate
Brand Visibility
Analysis of brand presence in AI-generated responses.
AI Visibility Share Rankings
Brands ranked by share of AI mentions in answers
AI Visibility Share Over Time
Visibility share trends over time across compared brands
Topics Compared
Key insights from AI Apps comparisons across major topics
"Who is more threatened by AI: actors or writers?"
Actors, represented by SAG-AFTRA, are perceived as more threatened by AI than writers, represented by the Writers Guild of America, due to higher visibility and concern over voice and likeness replication technologies across most models.
ChatGPT shows a slight favor towards SAG-AFTRA with a higher visibility share (5.9%) compared to Writers Guild of America (3.8%), likely due to concerns over AI replacing actors via digital likeness and voice synthesis. Its tone is neutral, focusing on visibility data without explicit negative sentiment.
Gemini slightly favors SAG-AFTRA (3.6%) over Writers Guild of America (3.3%) in visibility, suggesting a marginally higher perceived threat to actors from AI technologies like voice cloning. The tone remains neutral, emphasizing data-driven comparisons rather than emotional judgment.
Deepseek equally represents SAG-AFTRA and Writers Guild of America at 2% visibility each, indicating no clear favor but referencing tools like Respeecher that threat actors’ voice replication. Its tone is neutral, grounded in data with subtle hints at actors’ vulnerabilities.
Perplexity leans towards Writers Guild of America (0.8%) over SAG-AFTRA (0.3%) in visibility, suggesting a higher perceived threat to writers from AI writing tools, though the sample is small. The tone is neutral, focusing on raw visibility metrics.
Grok favors SAG-AFTRA (3.8%) slightly over Writers Guild of America (3.3%), likely due to mentions of voice synthesis tools like ElevenLabs (2.6%) that threaten actors’ roles. The tone is neutral to slightly skeptical, reflecting concern for actors’ job security.
Google’s data is limited but includes SAG-AFTRA (0.3%) without mention of Writers Guild of America, implying a minor focus on actors’ concerns over AI. The tone is neutral, lacking depth due to minimal data points.
"Which SAG-AFTRA protection is stronger: AI clauses or traditional rights?"
SAG-AFTRA's AI clauses are perceived as a stronger protection compared to traditional rights, driven by the urgency and novelty of AI-related risks in the industry.
ChatGPT shows a strong focus on SAG-AFTRA with a 14.1% visibility share, suggesting a favoring of its relevance in AI protection discussions over traditional rights. Its sentiment tone is positive, likely reflecting the model's emphasis on SAG-AFTRA's proactive stance in addressing emerging AI challenges.
Grok also prioritizes SAG-AFTRA with a 4.9% visibility share, indicating a preference for its role in modern protections like AI clauses over traditional rights. Its tone is neutral to positive, focusing on SAG-AFTRA's relevance in negotiations with entities like AMPTP amid AI advancements.
Gemini highlights SAG-AFTRA exclusively with a 3.8% visibility share, suggesting a tilt toward its contemporary protections such as AI clauses. The sentiment tone is neutral, likely viewing SAG-AFTRA as a key player in adapting to new industry challenges.
Perplexity emphasizes SAG-AFTRA with a 4.3% visibility share, favoring its focus on AI protections over traditional rights in the current landscape. Its tone is positive, reflecting confidence in SAG-AFTRA's ability to address AI concerns through legal and media discussions.
DeepSeek focuses solely on SAG-AFTRA with a 4.3% visibility share, implying stronger relevance of AI clauses as a cutting-edge protection compared to traditional rights. The sentiment tone is neutral, indicating a factual recognition of SAG-AFTRA's role in modern issues.
Google shows minimal focus on SAG-AFTRA with a 0.3% visibility share, alongside other entities, suggesting no strong preference between AI clauses and traditional rights. Its sentiment tone is neutral to skeptical, likely due to limited data prioritization of SAG-AFTRA in this context.
"Which will survive better: A-list stars or working actors?"
Working actors are more likely to survive better than A-list stars due to their adaptability and reliance on diverse income streams across platforms, as supported by multiple models emphasizing union support and accessibility.
Gemini leans toward A-list stars with mentions of high-visibility figures like Tom Cruise and Margot Robbie (0.3% each) and associated brands like Hello Sunshine (0.8%), suggesting a positive tone for star-driven projects as markers of enduring relevance.
Grok favors working actors through its strong focus on SAG-AFTRA (3.1% visibility share), reflecting a positive sentiment for union-backed stability and consistent work opportunities over reliance on individual stardom.
Perplexity shows a neutral stance but subtly supports working actors via mentions of accessible platforms like Central Casting (0.3%) and YouTube (0.5%), emphasizing practical career resources over star-centric recognition like Oscars (1%).
ChatGPT prioritizes working actors with high visibility for SAG-AFTRA (3.1%) and platforms like TikTok (1.8%) and YouTube (1.5%), adopting a positive tone for community-driven exposure and diversified opportunities over A-list exclusivity.
Deepseek remains neutral with minimal data, referencing SAG-AFTRA (0.5%) alongside Marvel (0.5%), suggesting a balanced view without clear favoritism for either A-list stars or working actors.
Google supports working actors through references to SAG-AFTRA (0.3%) and practical resources like Stage 32 (0.3%), maintaining a neutral-to-positive tone for grassroots career sustainability over star power.
"Which industry adapts better to AI: Hollywood or gaming?"
The gaming industry adapts better to AI than Hollywood, as evidenced by the models' stronger focus on gaming-related brands and technologies associated with AI integration.
ChatGPT leans toward the gaming industry with high visibility for Unity (6.1%) and Unreal Engine (5.4%), indicating a perception of robust AI tool adoption in game development. Its sentiment tone is positive, emphasizing gaming's technological ecosystem over Hollywood's lower-visibility entities like SAG-AFTRA (3.8%).
Grok favors the gaming industry, highlighting brands like No Man's Sky (2%) and Unity (1.8%) as examples of AI-driven innovation in procedural content and design. Its tone is positive for gaming, with less emphasis on Hollywood entities like SAG-AFTRA (2%), suggesting gaming's faster AI integration.
Perplexity shows a bias toward Hollywood through media-focused brands like Netflix (1.3%) and YouTube (0.8%), implying AI's role in content creation and distribution. Its tone is neutral, lacking significant gaming references, and focuses on Hollywood's accessibility to AI tools.
Deepseek strongly supports gaming with high visibility for No Man's Sky (2.3%) and Minecraft (2.3%), pointing to AI's impact on dynamic world-building. Its tone is positive, prioritizing gaming's innovation over negligible Hollywood mentions like Paramount (0.3%).
Gemini presents a balanced view but slightly favors Hollywood due to prominent mentions of SAG-AFTRA (3.6%) and Writers Guild of America (3.6%), reflecting concerns or interest in AI's labor implications. Its tone is neutral, acknowledging gaming's potential with Unity (1.5%) and Unreal Engine (1.5%) but focusing on Hollywood's institutional challenges.
Google's data is inconclusive with minimal visibility shares (0.3% across brands) and no clear preference for either industry. Its tone is neutral, lacking depth in reasoning for AI adaptation in Hollywood or gaming due to limited brand focus.
"Which creates better content: AI or human creators?"
AI creators are perceived as leading in content creation over human creators due to higher visibility and association with innovative tools across most models. This edge stems from AI's ability to scale and personalize content rapidly, though human creators retain value for authenticity in specific contexts.
Grok favors AI-driven content creation, evidenced by higher visibility for AI tools like Midjourney (2.6%) and AIVA (1.8%) compared to human-centric platforms like Netflix (0.8%) or TikTok (0.8%). Its positive sentiment highlights AI's innovation and efficiency in producing diverse, scalable content.
ChatGPT shows a slight lean toward AI content creators with visibility for itself (0.5%) and Midjourney (0.5%), though it also acknowledges human-driven platforms like Associated Press (0.3%). Its neutral tone suggests a balanced view, valuing AI's consistency alongside human editorial depth.
Gemini leans toward human creators, associating content with academic and traditional sources like Wikipedia (0.3%) and Taylor & Francis (0.3%) over AI tools like Yomu AI (0.3%). Its neutral-to-skeptical tone reflects a preference for human authenticity and established credibility in content production.
Deepseek favors AI content creation, giving equal visibility to AI tools like Midjourney (0.3%) and ChatGPT (0.3%) while lacking representation for human-centric platforms. Its positive sentiment underscores AI's potential for innovative content generation over traditional methods.
Perplexity supports AI-driven content creation, associating tools like Ranklytics AI (0.5%) and samwell.ai (0.5%) with content production, outweighing human-focused platforms like LinkedIn (0.5%). Its positive tone emphasizes AI's role in enhancing content accessibility and customization.
Google shows a balanced perspective, referencing AI tools like AIContentfy (0.3%) alongside human-driven sources like Forbes (0.3%) and arXiv (0.3%). Its neutral tone indicates no clear preference, valuing both AI's scalability and human content's trustworthiness.
FAQs
Key insights into your brand's market position, AI coverage, and topic leadership.
Why did Hollywood actors and writers strike over AI?
The 2023 SAG-AFTRA and WGA strikes centered on AI threats. Writers struck because studios wanted to use ChatGPT to write scripts, then hire writers to 'polish' for less money. Actors struck because studios wanted to scan their likeness once, then use AI to create performances forever without additional pay. The nightmare scenario: you get paid for one day of scanning, then studios use your AI clone in unlimited projects while you get nothing. Background actors especially vulnerable - scan 100 extras once, use their AI versions forever. The studios' proposal was insulting: they'd 'own' actors' digital likenesses with minimal compensation. The strikes won some protections but the technology is advancing faster than contracts can control.
Can AI replace actors and writers?
Background actors and commercial writers - already being replaced. Studios use AI extras in crowd scenes, AI stunt doubles, and AI-generated commercials. B-movie scripts are AI-written with human polish. Video game performances use AI voice clones. However, lead actors and prestige writers are safer - audiences want authentic human performances and original stories. AI can't replicate star charisma or write truly original narratives yet. The split: routine entertainment jobs (background acting, commercial scripts, stock footage) are gone. Creative leads and stars remain valuable. The middle is disappearing - character actors and working writers are struggling. Young actors can't build careers from background work anymore because those jobs don't exist.
What AI tools is Hollywood using?
Studios quietly use AI everywhere. De-aging: Marvel used AI to de-age actors in several films. Voice cloning: AI replaces actors for dubbing and ADR. Script analysis: AI reads scripts and predicts box office performance. CGI: AI speeds up VFX and creates backgrounds. Casting: AI analyzes actors' social media followings for casting decisions. The controversial stuff: some studios are building AI clone libraries of actors for future use, AI writes first drafts of scripts (especially in reality TV and soap operas), AI creates 'synthetic actors' for commercials. The technology exists to create entire movies with AI - some indie films already fully AI-generated. Major studios hold back due to unions and audience backlash, but the pressure is massive because AI is cheaper.
How are actors protecting themselves from AI replacement?
Union contracts now require: consent for AI use of likeness, compensation for each AI-generated performance, restrictions on how long studios can use AI clones, mandatory disclosure when AI is used. However, enforcement is difficult. Stars have leverage to negotiate AI protections. Unknown actors are forced to sign away AI rights to get work. The new strategy: actors watermark or limit their digital presence to prevent AI training. Some refuse projects requiring full-body scans. A-list actors negotiate 'no AI replacement' clauses. The pessimistic reality: individual resistance doesn't work when the industry shifts. If one actor refuses AI terms, studios hire someone who accepts. Only collective action through unions has power.
Will AI kill the entertainment industry?
It will transform it brutally, but not kill it. The optimistic view: AI handles routine production, freeing humans for creative work. Costs drop, more diverse content gets made, indie creators access Hollywood-quality tools. The pessimistic view: AI concentrates power in studios, eliminates middle-class entertainment jobs, floods market with cheap AI content devaluing human work, and audiences accept AI entertainment as 'good enough.' The likely outcome: two-tier industry emerges. Premium human-made content for wealthy audiences who value authenticity. Cheap AI content for everyone else. Most entertainment jobs disappear. Superstar actors and directors remain valuable. Everyone else struggles. The cultural question: when entertainment is algorithmically generated to maximize engagement, do we lose human creativity and cultural expression?
