In August 2025, Dr Roy Hanney, posted an intriguing position paper that examined the future of the UK screen industries and the adoption of AI technology. He asked: Are we training the next generation for the workflows they'll actually face, or the ones we grew up with?
In short, I agreed that no, the UK is not prepared. Far from it.
But the paper also stirred my deeper thoughts on the use of AI in creative sectors and how it may effect the film students I teach at City Eye. Yes, I have seen Nick Cave's AI letter, and largely agree with the sentiment that removing human minds from the creative process is a slippery slope away from the very thing that makes our species different - the desire and joy of creating what we want. To manifest ideas and build tangible change into our daily lives.
However, we are entering, or rather we have already entered, a new age where the choice to excel in the workplace may rely on our ability to integrate AI systems into our practise. There is no escaping this, so it's our duty to make sure we use it well.
Read the response below:
Excellent read Roy Hanney and a topic I think about often.
On the one hand, City Eye has always strived to make filmmaking accessible to all. In that sense, AI tools are simply the next logical step. So yes, I’m behind it.
On the other hand, I shudder at the idea that our students might come to rely on AI for everything. Particularly in the frustrating but vital work of idea generation and story-plotting. Storytelling is a way of thinking. It’s how you learn to recognise patterns, decode propaganda and make sense of the world.
If you hit writer’s block and have a computer untangle that knot, it might feel efficient in the moment but it’s less satisfying and maybe even damaging in the long run. MIT seems to agree (see here: https://lnkd.in/er-YSeXH).
It’s the creative equivalent of carrying a calculator in your pocket. Why learn advanced calculus if the machine will do it for you?
That’s why, despite a lot of doom and gloom about AI replacing jobs, the question can’t be “should our students use AI?” Because the industry will demand they do. The responsibility falls on us to teach them how to use it in a positive manner. We can either allow AI to become a crutch or we can treat it as a catalyst for deeper thinking and more original work.
I believe the answer lies in shaping an environment where the most celebrated student or creative isn’t the one who lets AI do the heavy lifting but the one who pushes it further to create something fresh and distinctively their own. We should reward experimentation, risk and the development of a unique voice.
The problem is, risk is not attractive to investors, government or anyone with the power to make the changes we want to see.
I don’t know how we pivot when the technology is outpacing our ability to up-skill. But if we sleepwalk through this transition, we risk turning out a generation of filmmakers who can operate the tools but have forgotten how to tell a compelling story.
There needs to be more open discussion on this topic so that all sectors, not just film, can better prepare for what lies ahead.