When AI Becomes Just Another Creative Tool

Eventually, nobody will care if something was made with AI.

I know that sounds like a big claim, especially when so many people are worried about what AI could mean for their careers. I don’t think the questions about jobs, ownership, or consent will disappear. I mean something a little different: for most people experiencing the finished work, whether AI was used may matter less than whether the work is actually good.

I started thinking about this after watching a Fortune video about the economics of AI in Hollywood. What stood out to me wasn’t just what the technology can do. It was how quickly the industry is moving from experiments to everyday production workflows.

Hollywood is moving faster than it looks

In July 2025, Netflix pointed to a building-collapse scene in The Eternaut as the first generative-AI final footage to appear on screen in one of its original productions. Just a year later, Netflix reported that generative-AI workflows had been used in roughly 300 of its titles during 2026, with most activity in post-production.

That doesn’t mean 300 shows were generated by AI. The company described uses across the production process, from early planning and previsualization to visual effects and delivery. It’s an important distinction, but the change in scale is still remarkable.

Lionsgate is another example. In June 2026, it expanded its partnership with Runway, took an equity stake in the company, and announced plans for short-form episodic projects that would draw on existing Lionsgate intellectual property.

These aren’t just technology demos anymore. The tools are becoming part of the way established studios make things.

Jurassic Park is a useful reminder

All of this reminded me of Jurassic Park. When it came out in 1993, photorealistic computer-generated creatures were still new territory. And more than 30 years later, those dinosaurs still look incredible.

What makes the film especially interesting is how carefully the effects were chosen and combined. Steven Spielberg worked with Stan Winston’s practical puppetry and Industrial Light & Magic’s computer-generated dinosaurs. According to ILM’s own retrospective, the finished movie contained about six minutes of CG dinosaurs alongside nine minutes of practical puppetry.

That balance wasn’t a limitation to work around. It was part of what made the result convincing. The effects served the scenes, the performances, the pacing, and the feeling Spielberg wanted the audience to have.

Nobody watches Jurassic Park today and thinks its value comes from being an early CGI showcase. It’s remembered because it’s a great movie, and because the people making it knew when and how to use the tools available to them.

Better technology doesn’t automatically mean better work

We’ve had decades of improvements in visual effects since Jurassic Park. The technology is more capable, faster, and available to far more people. Yet plenty of newer movies leave a smaller impression.

That’s not because newer tools are bad. It’s because having more options doesn’t tell you which option is right. A technically impressive shot can still feel empty if it doesn’t support the story.

I suspect generative AI will follow a similar path. At first, the novelty is the point: Was that really made with AI? Eventually, the novelty wears off. Audiences stop grading the tools and start reacting to the result.

I think design is heading in the same direction

I’ve spent most of my career in design, and I see the same distinction in websites, products, identities, and digital experiences. Production matters, but production is only part of the job.

AI can help us explore directions, prototype ideas, generate assets, and get through some of the repetitive work. That changes the economics of what a small team can attempt. It doesn’t automatically tell us which direction is worth pursuing.

Does the design solve the right problem? Does it make something easier to understand? Does it make someone feel confident, curious, comfortable, or excited? Is it an experience they’ll want to come back to?

Those questions still require judgment. And when making things becomes easier, I think judgment may matter even more.

I also don’t want to dismiss the real concerns. How models are trained, how people are compensated, and what happens to certain roles are serious issues. Even if a viewer can’t tell how something was made, the way it was made can still matter ethically.

The tools will change. The reason we create won’t.

I don’t expect every creative discipline to change in exactly the same way, and I’m not predicting that everyone will suddenly love AI. I just think it will eventually become an ordinary part of many creative workflows, much like CGI is today.

At that point, I hope the conversation shifts away from whether a piece of work used AI and toward the experience it creates.

Does it tell a great story? Does it solve a problem? Does it make someone feel something?

AI will change a lot about how we create things. I don’t think it changes what makes something worth creating in the first place.

Sources & further reading

Fortune: How AI Is Quietly Changing the Economics of Hollywood

Netflix Q2 2026 results and letter to shareholders

Netflix’s first on-screen generative-AI scene in The Eternaut

Runway and Lionsgate expand their partnership

Industrial Light & Magic: Breathing Life into the Dinosaurs of Jurassic Park

Photography: Cemrecan Yurtman, Ron Lach and Kyle Loftus via Pexels.