‘We’re human beings, dammit!’: TV Boss Blasts Big Tech AI

Adario Strange
May 8, 2026

MAN AND ROBOTS: A weekly column from MARS Magazine on AI, Hollywood, and the future of work.

🎬 Golden Globes Warm Up to AI?

1. Movie and TV awards season is now over, but that hasn’t slowed the decision-making process regarding how AI will or will not impact how outstanding achievement on the big and small screen is determined. On Thursday, the Golden Globes released new guidelines, with AI taking up a significant portion of the update. Despite the trend toward anti-AI sentiment in Hollywood, the organization is taking a surprisingly permissive stance on the technology.

“The use of artificial intelligence (AI), including generative AI, does not automatically disqualify a work from consideration, provided that human creative direction, artistic judgment, and authorship remain primary throughout the production process,” reads the updated rules. “AI and similar technologies may be used as part of the production process…but may not replace the core creative contributions of human talent.”

This could significantly broaden the films and TV shows eligible for Golden Globes as AI continues to make inroads across all platforms, most notably Netflix, which has devoted a good deal of attention to crafting its own internal AI tools.

But There’s a Catch: The open attitude toward AI does come with a caveat: It must be fully disclosed. There will be no using AI, getting nominated for outstanding work, and then hastily disclosing after the fact. And that disclosure includes instances when AI was used to alter an actor’s voice (as in The Brutalist) or face (as in Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga). Furthermore, the Golden Globes may move to investigate if AI has been used if there are questions around the matter. “The Golden Globes Eligibility Committee will review the use of AI as part of the submission and eligibility determination process and may request additional information or materials to assess the role in the creation of the work,” reads the AI guideline. “Failure to provide requested information in a timely manner may result in ineligibility.”

📺 Silicon Valley Parody-Maker On AI Reality

2. “There are a lot of conversations about writers being replaced by AI. I guess the answer to that is, we’re human beings, dammit. And I don’t want the human experience to be chronicled by a fuckin’ machine. I have nothing against the tech in and of itself. It’s how it’s being pushed upon us. And it is the human beings who are deciding how to do that… It is their choice to insinuate something into our devices, into our quotidian lives that they don’t fully understand. And they don’t know whether it might be a 10-to-15% chance that it actually annihilates us. It’s their choice to do that. Nobody’s asking for it.”
–Jonathan Glatzer, creator of The Audacity TV series
*Source: Variety FYC TV Fest

🤖 Humans vs. AI: Newspaper Edition

3. Earlier this week, I unpacked and reframed the AI kerfuffle over at McClatchy, where journalists are unifying to engage in a first-of-its-kind byline strike in revolt against a new AI summarization tool, called a Content Scaling Agent, that the publisher is using. The problem is that the publisher wants to put human journalists’ names on AI outputs, with the apparent justification being that the outputs are based on the reporter’s work. “Until McClatchy commits to stronger guardrails and greater transparency about its AI expansion, we’re keeping our names and credibility off AI content,” wrote One Herald Guild, the union representing the journalists, posted on Twitter/X last week.

For non-news nerds, McClatchy is the publisher of many newspapers across the U.S., including The Miami Herald, The Sacramento Bee, The Kansas City Star, The Idaho Statesman, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, The Charlotte Observer, and many others. Some of the papers have been in circulation for over 140 years, so the idea of mixing AI outputs with human work is being framed by some as fundamentally destroying the hard-earned credibility of a number of media institutions.

The AI Hard Line: There hasn’t been an update on the situation, but while digging around, I stumbled across something that I had initially missed. In a PDF document posted by the union, some of the detailed comments from the executives at McClatchy are revealed, and, well, let’s just say the executives aren’t just bullish on AI, they are fairly aggressive about deploying it.

The union claims that last month, a McClatchy executive said they have “every right to use [reporters’] work,” even if the reporter refuses to put their name on the AI output. The union further claims that the executive said the reporting work “belongs to us … if an editor wants to go in there and repurpose a reporter’s content, they can put their name on it.” Those statements are…aggressive. It effectively erases any agency on the part of the reporter and takes things to a place every reporter dreads: What happens when a publisher openly decides it doesn’t care what the reporters think? This has come up time and again over the decades at various news organizations, but never with AI as the point of friction.

It’s unclear how this will end. More reporter layoffs? A compromise of some sort? A lawsuit? Whatever happens next, it will likely be viewed as precedent-setting and could influence how other major news publishers handle AI versus human reporters in the newsroom. “We understand that the company is bullish about AI. Used thoughtfully and ethically, it can be a powerful tool to support our journalism—but it must have guardrails,” a union statement on the situation read. “Artificial intelligence can be a valuable tool for journalists. It should never, and cannot, replace journalists.”

🏆 New Rules: No Oscars for AI?

4. The Golden Globes aren’t the only awards show getting its AI house in order. The Academy Awards (aka the Oscars)also just published updated guidelines that indicate that the organization is taking AI more seriously than it did during the most recent Oscar ceremony.

“Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence, the Academy reserves the right to request more information about the nature of the use and human authorship,” the new guidelines state. But they’re not just referring to VFX or other enhancements. The Academy is getting ahead of the whole AI actor discussion (intensified by the arrival of Tilly Norwood) by outlining clearer parameters for award eligibility.

“In the Acting category, only roles credited in the film’s legal billing and demonstrably performed by humans with their consent will be considered eligible,” the Academy clarified this week. And that treatment will be extended to screenwriters as well. “In the Writing categories, the rules codify that screenplays must be human-authored to be eligible.”

Resistance Is Futile? How the Academy will attempt to determine when or if a screenwriter used AI to assist their work is unknown. In fact, I’ll say it here, right now: There’s no way they will be able to detect which screenplays are 100% human-written, or AI-assisted, or 100% AI-written. Eye tests/reading tests don’t work, and no AI detection tool is currently consistent enough to hold up in court. So this Academy writing guideline is effectively based on the honor system. As for actors, well, it’s still pretty difficult to fake an entire human life, so that guideline will hold up well…for now.