Netflix Has Used AI on About 300 Titles, but “Human Touch Is Critical,” Exec Says in Busan
Netflix has deployed artificial intelligence across approximately 300 titles in various stages of production, according to the streaming giant's senior production executive speaking at the Busan International Film Festival this week. During a panel discussion at the industry event, Sung Q Lee stressed that while AI assists with previsualization, set design, editing and visual effects, the company remains committed to preserving human creativity and emotional resonance in storytelling.
The revelation comes as the broader film industry grapples with conflicting views on AI's role in filmmaking. Whilst Hollywood remains largely cautious, Asian content creators increasingly see the technology as an opportunity to overcome budget constraints; Korean director Kang Yun-sung estimated AI tools could reduce production costs by around 40 percent on his upcoming action film. Despite these cost benefits, Kang's previous fully AI-assisted feature, "Run to the West," earned only $100,000 at the box office, highlighting potential audience concerns about AI-heavy production.
- Netflix has used AI on 300 titles but emphasises human touch remains critical.
- Korean filmmakers see AI as opportunity to overcome budget constraints and expand creative possibilities.
- AI-assisted film earned only $100,000, showing audience scepticism about AI-heavy content.
New here? Start with this
The film and television industry is increasingly exploring the use of artificial intelligence in production. AI tools can assist with various stages of filmmaking, from early design concepts through to editing and visual effects, potentially making complex technical tasks faster or cheaper.
Different parts of the world are taking different approaches to this technology. Filmmakers in Asia are generally embracing AI as a way to reduce production budgets and make ambitious projects more affordable, whilst the Hollywood industry has been more cautious about adopting it widely.
A key question remains whether audiences will accept content created with significant AI involvement. Early projects offer mixed signals, with some directors predicting substantial cost savings whilst others note that audiences may not always respond positively to AI-heavy productions.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Proponents argue that AI democratises high-budget filmmaking by substantially reducing production costs, enabling more diverse creators to tell ambitious stories. They emphasise AI's targeted utility in technical roles such as previsualization and visual effects, where it augments rather than replaces human creativity, freeing storytellers to concentrate on narrative and emotional depth. This represents a natural evolution of filmmaking technology, and Netflix's insistence that the "human touch is critical" demonstrates commitment to preserving what matters most in storytelling.
The case against
Critics raise legitimate concerns about the displacement of skilled professionals in editing, design, and visual effects, as well as the potential erosion of human artistry in pursuit of cost efficiency. They note that AI-heavy productions have underperformed commercially, suggesting audiences may prioritise authentic human creativity and craftsmanship. Beyond employment fears, there is concern that corporate incentives to reduce costs will eventually override commitments to human involvement, with artistic vision gradually becoming secondary to economic targets.