Oscars Tweak Voting Rules and Take a Clearer Stance on AI

The Academy tightens voting eligibility with new viewing requirements and opens the door to AI-assisted films—so long as human creativity remains at the heart of the work.

Designed by Freepik

The Oscars are looking to update not just their procedures but their principles, as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences confirmed two key shifts this past week: one aimed at making the voting process more credible, and the other at defining the role of AI in the creative process.

Starting this year, Oscar voters must now actually watch every film in a category before casting their votes in that category. While that might sound like common sense, the rule codifies what many in the industry have long suspected wasn’t always happening. Especially in the more technical or less-publicized categories, votes could be cast based on reputation, buzz, or campaign efforts rather than the merits of the work itself. The new rule intends to steer voting back toward meritocracy, or at least make the attempt.

Alongside that procedural update came a much more culturally loaded clarification: how AI-generated elements will be treated when it comes to nominations. According to the Academy, the use of generative AI in a film will neither help nor hinder its chances at a nomination. It’s a cautious response to an increasingly common question, especially as studios experiment with AI-assisted scripts, digital doubles, and synthetic VFX. In essence, the Academy isn’t rejecting AI’s presence, but it’s drawing a line—the work must ultimately be authored by humans.

That last point matters. In a year when debates around AI and intellectual property have reached new heights, and both the WGA and SAG-AFTRA have drawn hard lines on the use of AI in their latest contracts, the Academy’s stance is an effort to keep its feet on cultural solid ground while facing inevitable technological waves. There’s no ban on AI. But there’s no shortcut to creative ownership either.

The clarification might not end the discussion, but it signals that the Oscars are at least beginning to wrestle with the new storytelling tools at Hollywood’s disposal. And it's likely not the last update we'll see as generative tools move further into the mainstream. Whether it's a co-written screenplay touched up by ChatGPT or a fully digital crowd scene created using machine-learning-based software, the question of authorship is likely to keep evolving. What counts as a "performance"? What counts as "direction"? And how do we measure creativity when some elements are crafted by algorithms?

For now, the Academy appears focused on two things: making sure voters actually do their homework and ensuring the artistic soul of a film still has a beating human heart. As AI continues to become part of the toolkit behind the camera, this may be the Oscars’ way of planting a flag in what it still means to make a movie—at least when it comes to the gold statuette.