彭博專欄作家凱瑟琳·索貝克上週在東京參加了一場AI電影節，原本預期會看到粗製濫造的作品，卻意外地被銀幕上流露出的人性所打動。她最喜歡的短片以一個拿著攝影機的孩子視角，記錄與祖父母共度的美好夏天；獲獎作品講述一位巴黎面部畸形男子渴望尋找舞伴的故事；最受觀眾歡迎的《郵差》則想像一個分揀垃圾的機器人懷念曾經遞送手寫信件時與人類建立連結的未來世界。這三部影片都讓她產生了真實的情感共鳴，而這在AI生成內容普遍被視為缺乏靈魂的當下，本身就是一個具有挑戰性的觀點。（關鍵數字：5, 11）
文章指出，觀眾對AI藝術的偏見往往受到「知情效應」的影響。一位匿名藝術家在社群媒體上發布了一張圖片，聲稱是AI模仿莫內的作品，評論者紛紛批評其缺乏深度與精緻度，但該圖片最終被揭露為莫內的真跡。這一事件印證了研究結論：人們在不知道AI參與的情況下往往給予更高評價，得知後則會降低評分。與此同時，作者也坦承，她在飛機上看的幾部好萊塢大片——由大量人力和巨額預算打造——同樣毫無靈魂可言，多是敷衍的續集，劇本更像企業委員會的產物，而非人類經驗的真實表達。
在東京遇到的電影創作者們並非魯莽的AI加速主義者，而是務實的藝術家。他們承認AI降低了成本、提高了效率，但並未改變電影製作的本質。來自動畫產業的創作者認為AI是管理工作量的實用工具，而人類的創造力源自累積的生命經驗，機器無法取代。文章最後強調，儘管AI正在改變故事的製作方式，但創意產業工會在決定技術如何被使用方面至關重要，且該技術的建構方式——未經許可大量擷取創作者作品——仍需透過合理的補償機制來解決。最終，觀眾會自行判斷哪些故事值得他們的時間與金錢，而AI無法取代驅使人類講述故事的那份初衷。
Bloomberg Opinion columnist Catherine Thorbecke attended an AI film festival in Tokyo hosted by Runway, a $5 billion US-based startup, and was struck by the emotional depth of the films on display. Her favorite was an 11-minute short capturing a child's summer with grandparents; the winner told the story of a disfigured man in Paris longing for a dance partner; and the crowd favorite, The Postman, depicted a robot yearning for the human connections it once had as a mail carrier. All three films provoked genuine emotion, challenging the prevailing assumption that AI-generated content is inherently soulless — a provocative stance given widespread anger over AI's impact on intellectual property and artists' livelihoods.
The article highlights a persistent bias against AI art shaped by awareness of its origins. A viral episode in which internet commentators criticized what they believed was an AI imitation of Monet — only for it to be revealed as an authentic painting by the Impressionist — illustrates research showing that people rate AI-involved work lower once they learn of its provenance. Thorbecke also questions the sanctity of traditional filmmaking, noting that several big-budget Hollywood films she watched on a flight felt equally devoid of soul, resembling corporate committee work rather than genuine creative expression. Winning over audiences, she argues, will require demonstrating that AI films involve far more labor and artistry than simply prompting a machine.
The filmmakers Thorbecke met in Tokyo were pragmatic artists who viewed AI as a cost-reducing and efficiency-boosting tool rather than a replacement for human creativity. They acknowledged the technology's limitations — such as the near-impossibility of replicating complex long takes — and emphasized that core filmmaking skills like character development and shot composition remain essential. The article concludes by stressing that while AI is transforming how stories are produced, creative industry unions must play a central role in governing its adoption, and the industry must find ways to compensate creators whose work was used to train generative models. Ultimately, machines cannot experience the ache of missing a grandparent or the loneliness of hiding behind a mask; AI can change how stories are made, but not what motivates us to tell them.