‘Digging the grave of my profession’: the Hollywood creatives training AI to do their jobs
Experienced Hollywood writers, directors and producers are increasingly taking gig work training AI models to replicate their own professional skills, as tightening earnings and a slump in entertainment industry jobs push them towards alternative income. Paid between $12 and $200 an hour by agencies with contracts held by major AI firms including Anthropic and OpenAI, these creatives teach systems tasks such as writing screenplays, building shooting schedules and devising production pitch decks, prompting some to describe the work with fatalism or guilt.
Screenwriter and producer Ruth Fowler, known for BBC One's Rules of the Game and Paramount Plus's Little Disasters, said production work is down around 35%, pushing her towards AI training tasks such as scheduling a hypothetical shoot and creating pitch decks. Another contributor, an anonymous documentary director, trained an AI to transcribe muddled video audio and characterise speakers by appearance and accent, raising concerns among freelancers about the implications. The trend coincides with AI's growing presence in the industry, with Netflix reporting AI use in 300 of its 1,000 titles in 2026 and directors such as Ron Howard beginning to adopt the technology.
- Hollywood creatives take paid gig work training AI to replicate their jobs
- Pay ranges $12–$200/hour amid a 35% production downturn
- Netflix used AI in 300 of 1,000 titles released in 2026
New here? Start with this
Hollywood films and television are made by teams of writers, directors, producers and crew, whose work depends on projects being commissioned and productions going ahead. When fewer jobs are available and earnings fall, experienced creatives may take short-term work in other fields to make ends meet.
Some are now paid to teach artificial intelligence systems how to carry out tasks used in film and television production, such as writing scenes or planning a shoot. The agencies arranging this work have contracts with major AI companies, while the creatives bring practical experience from the industry.
The work sits within a wider debate about how AI may change creative jobs. It matters because the people helping train these systems are also weighing how the technology could affect the work and livelihoods of their colleagues.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
These skilled professionals face real financial hardship as production work contracts, and refusing to train AI individually won't stop the technology's development—it will only leave them jobless. Taking paid AI training work lets them adapt to inevitable technological change, keep their income, and potentially understand systems that will reshape their industry anyway, making pragmatic participation a reasonable response to economic pressure.
The case against
Whilst individual financial pressures are genuine, creatives collectively training AI to do their own work speeds up automation and devalues creative labour, eliminating future opportunities for the next generation of professionals. These experienced creatives are paid relatively modest rates ($12-$200 per hour) for expertise that benefits large AI firms substantially; coordinated industry action for better pay and stronger protections might serve their interests better than individual choices that together advance their own replacement.