AI

One of L.A.’s most unique art galleries is closing up shop.

Gallery 1988, which opened in 2004 and proclaimed itself “the first pop culture-focused art gallery in the world,” will cease operations at the end of April. In a post on Instagram, gallery owner Katie Sutton said that while the gallery had been forced to close its physical space on Melrose a few years back, she had “really tried to keep things going [online], especially for our amazing artists.” Unfortunately, she wrote, “the [art] market is the worst I’ve seen it in over two decades,” and the decision to close became inevitable.

A launching pad for artists whose work paid tribute to television, film, video games and more, Gallery 1988 was renowned for shows like the annual “Crazy 4 Cult,” which showcased pieces celebrating underground classics from across the entertainment space. It also specialized in single-focus shows like “Weird Al,” which celebrated the career of the oddball recording artist “Weird Al” Yankovic, and “You’re the Very Best, Like No One Ever Was,” which paid tribute to the world of Pokémon.

Exhibitions at Gallery 1988, which is closing after 20 years, often featured lines around the block, with fans who camped out for a chance to score a prized piece.

(Courtesy of Gallery 1988)

Perhaps most famously, the gallery collaborated with studios to create art-focused campaigns around properties such as “The Avengers” and “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” while also launching solo shows from artists like Scott C, Luke Chueh and Tom Whalen.

Gallery 1988 was renowned for selling work that ranged in price from $10 into the thousands, enabling customers from around the world to buy pieces that spoke to them, whether a postcard-sized digital print or a large oil-on-canvas painting.

A number of other galleries have closed in recent months across Los Angeles, including Blum, Nino Mier Gallery, Clearing, Tanya Bonakdar Gallery and L.A. Louver. Sutton says that she’s heard through the gallery grapevine that “even galleries that haven’t closed are struggling,” adding that “it’s a hard time for everybody.”

Though there’s never one reason a business closes, some industry observers and art fans have cited the rise in AI-generated content potentially devaluing original art overall. It’s especially true in the pop culture space, with consumer activity down not just at places like Gallery 1988 but also at events such as WonderCon in Anaheim, where artists could often expect to make a good chunk of change.

Jensen Karp, who co-founded Gallery 1988 with Sutton but stepped back after a health scare nearly two years ago, says that while he certainly sees a “malaise in culture because of AI” that’s indicative of the population “losing the understanding of what true art is,” he wouldn’t attribute the collapse of Gallery 1988 solely to that one thing.

Kristin Tercek “Rejoice” 2015 for the “Force Awakens” show with Disney, LucasFilm and Unicef at Gallery 1988.

(© Kristin Tercek / courtesy of Gallery 1988)

“Our customer base was the people who looked up release dates and who went to the Arclight, and that sense of community is just not there anymore post-pandemic,” Karp says. With the entertainment industry struggling in L.A. as well, that means less disposable income floating around for things like art — especially from the kinds of people who might be inclined to buy a portrait of, say, Steve Martin in the movie “The Jerk.”

Greg Simkins, a California based artist who often sold through Gallery 1988 under the name “CRAOLA,” says he’s felt the impact of the entertainment industry’s contraction firsthand. “People like directors, producers and actors were some of our biggest clients,” Simkins says. “All of the sudden they’re leaving, going to places like Atlanta and Canada. AI is screwing up the movie industry too, and those are the kinds of people who had expendable money to buy original art so it trickles down.”

It doesn’t help that there’s more pop culture-centered art floating around now, and not just on sites like Instagram and Etsy. Though Gallery 1988 was a frontrunner in celebrating popular culture through art when it opened, even hosting a “Rick and Morty”-themed show before the Adult Swim series had a lick of merchandise, it also became a proof of concept for companies including Disney and Netflix, which have started selling their own artist-created material inspired by their properties.

And with Hollywood releasing fewer movies into theaters, the base of what Gallery 1988 artists could pay tribute to also began to contract. Frequent gallery contributor Whalen says that when Gallery 1988 opened, it was filling a niche and “creating fresh content for movies that spoke to” people in their 20s and 30s. Over time, though, art that celebrated properties like “Ghostbusters,” “Back to the Future” and “The Goonies” started to overwhelm the market, causing “a lot of the 1970s and ‘80s movies to become stale,” Whalen says.

Scott C’s “Breaking Bad Upon the Mount,” 2012, for the “Breaking Bad Art Project: With Sony and Vince Gilligan” at Gallery 1988.

(© Scott C. / courtesy of Gallery 1988)

While Sutton and Karp both say they’re beyond grateful that they got to open Gallery 1988 in the first place, let alone keep it open for more than 20 years, they’re worried about what closing the gallery will mean to some of their contributing artists.

“There are so many incredible artists out there and there are so many more places for them to show their work now and that’s amazing,” Sutton says. “But with that bombardment of media from everywhere, it’s hard to really see stuff because it’s coming at you from all directions. So many artists are out there trying to make a living and support their families and that’s just becoming harder and harder.”

“So many of the artists we showed never expected to have an art gallery email them,” Karp says. “I’m so proud of all the artists we worked with and what we were able to do, but I also know that [Gallery 1988 shutting down] closes up an avenue for all of them too and that sucks.”

California built its tradition of open government — including for citizen boards that set the rules for such functions as automotive repair and security guard licensing — precisely to keep well-funded corporate interests in check. Lobbyists and special interests are constantly scheming to defeat the will of the majority. Now they are able to do more damage using artificial intelligence to simulate fake grassroots opposition to clean air measures, and they are surreptitiously using the identities of real people to deceive regulators.

Last June, the South Coast Air Quality Management District received more than 20,000 comments opposing a pair of clean air rules that would have prevented 2,500 premature deaths and 10,000 new cases of asthma. A February investigation by the Los Angeles Times revealed that those comments were submitted through CiviClick, a Washington-based AI-powered comment generation platform, orchestrated by a local political consultant with ties to the natural gas industry. When the district’s cybersecurity team reached out to a small sample of commenters to verify their identities, a majority of respondents said that they had not submitted the comments in their names.

Even so, the flood of fake comments seemingly worked. These rules, vehemently opposed by the natural gas industry, already watered down by the district to near-toothlessness, were ultimately rejected by the board — apparently overwhelmed by the flood of fake opposition to even the mildest effort to limit pollution from gas-burning appliances.

This Southern California campaign was not an isolated incident. A recent investigation by the San Francisco Chronicle also revealed that an industry front group used Speak4, a platform that advertises its use of AI, to submit dozens of comments regurgitating talking points from the fossil fuel industry in an attempt to weaken and delay clean air rules in the Bay Area. The scheme was exposed when 10 residents whose identities were used on these emails said they absolutely did not send them, calling the messages “forged.”

In both cases, organizations submitted emails and comments to regulators using real people’s identities without their knowledge or consent. This playbook has been employed in other states: CiviClick was used by fossil fuel companies to support a gas-pipeline-expansion project in North Carolina last year. When elected officials reached out to a few respondents to verify the messages, some constituents stated they had no knowledge of the emails sent under their names.

The opposition campaign to South Coast’s clean air rules was run by one of the state’s most powerful lobbying firms. Its client list includes Sempra, the parent company of SoCalGas, which opposed the clean air standards, which would have encouraged the sale of pollution-free heat pumps and threatened the utility’s business.

The industry front group using AI to undermine clean air rules in the Bay Area, Common Sense Coalition, also has ties to fossil fuel companies. Common Sense Coalition is a project of the Bay Area Council, a local business group that features members such as the Western States Petroleum Assn., Chevron, Martinez Refining Co. and Phillips 66.

The question of whether fossil fuel interests financed astroturf AI campaigns to defeat clean air rules should be answered through full investigations, which also ought to address whether the campaigns committed fraud and identity theft.

Californians deserve to know what is going on — how AI was used, where the lobbyists got the names and addresses they attached to the robo-messages and who paid for the deceptive campaigns. What’s most concerning is the use of actual residents’ identities — without their knowledge or consent — to oppose life-saving clean air standards.

Top law enforcement officials should be investigating — including Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman and San Francisco Dist. Atty. Brooke Jenkins.
If the law on using a person’s name in a scheme to thwart action by a public agency is not clear enough to support prosecutions, then the law needs to be tightened up — and there is legislation, Senate Bill 1159, aiming to do that.

If this seems like a niche issue, I can assure you it is not. I spent 17 years at the helm of the California Air Resources Board, and I am deeply disturbed by the potential co-opting of public input processes using forgery through automated tools. Gathering public input is fundamental to the legitimacy of regulatory agencies.

We frequently heard from individuals or business associations concerned about the cost or burden of proposed regulation, and we worked hard to understand and tailor our rules to make them as streamlined and cost-effective as we could, while still making progress toward reducing the air and climate harms of a wide array of equipment and activities.

The destruction of meaningful public input through deceit isn’t just an environmental issue; it’s a democracy issue — and it demands urgent attention and accountability. California should draw the line to protect our democratic institutions.

Mary Nichols was chair of the California Air Resources Board, where she occupied the attorney seat. She is distinguished counsel to the Emmett Institute on Climate and Sustainability at UCLA Law School.

AI is coming. AI is here. AI is a bubble. AI is the future we want. AI is the end. AI is the path to a better us (at least the ones who survive it).

A big topic, this artificial intelligence, with a lot of different ways to think about it. To grapple with AI is a worthy endeavor for any filmmaker. (And by grapple, I don’t mean asking AI to make the film for you.)

Daniel Roher, the man behind the Oscar-winning “Navalny,” has, along with co-director Charlie Tyrell, attempted a nonfiction primer of sorts on the biggest technological, societal and existential challenge of our time with “The AI Doc: Or How I Became an Apocaloptimist,” a title boasting a hybrid coinage Roher picks up from one of his interviewed experts — one of too many, it turns out. “The AI Doc” is a well-intentioned but aggravating soup of information and opinion that wants to move at the speed of machine thought.

Roher’s approach is understandable for a mainstream doc. He assumes many of us are tech-competent, anxious and confused as to what AI even is to begin with. In his pursuit of answers, Roher employs a cloying framework: his loving wife occasionally narrating as if this were a storybook and Roher the protagonist of a scary adventure. The fable construct extends to a frenetic visual scheme of handmade art and animation that interrupts our absorption process as if we were kids needing stimulation between all the talking heads.

As for the AI itself, the experts — a mix of tech founders (such as Sam Altman and Anthropic’s Amodei siblings), historians, scientists and assorted champions and skeptics — come to Roher’s home, because he wants to foreground a key question as an expectant father: Should he be bringing a child into this world?

Perhaps more urgently, should Roher have made an AI doc that treats us like children? First, he parades all the safety doomers, seeming to believe their warnings that an unfeeling superintelligence is upon us and we can’t trust it. Then, sufficiently disturbed, he hauls in the AI cheerleaders, a suspiciously positive gang who can envision only medical miracles and grindless lives in which we’re all full-time artists.

Only then, after this simplistic setup where platitudes reign, do we get the section in which the subject is treated like the brave (and grave) new world it is: geopolitically fraught, economically tenuous and a playground for billionaires.

Why couldn’t the complexity have been the dialogue from the beginning, instead of the play-dumb cartoon “The AI Doc” feels like for so long? Maybe Roher believes this is what our increasingly gullible, truth-challenged citizenry needs from an explanatory doc: a flashy, kindhearted reminder that we’re the change we need to be.

But if you thirst for a sober-minded investigation into this ominous tool — one with an approach that treats you like the intelligent being you are — you’ll have to wait for AI doc 2.0.

Space isn’t a forgiving place to be stuck. There’s no air, no pulling over for directions and no margin for error. When something goes wrong, you’re left with whatever you have on hand for however long you can make it last.

That fear drives the new sci-fi epic “Project Hail Mary,” opening in theaters Friday, with Ryan Gosling as Ryland Grace, a middle school science teacher who wakes up alone on a spacecraft light-years from Earth with no memory of how he got there. Gradually he realizes he’s been sent on a mission to figure out why the sun is dimming and how to stop it. What begins in isolation turns into something closer to a buddy movie, as Grace ends up working with an alien he names Rocky, another traveler trying to solve the same problem.

The film, directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, comes from sci-fi author Andy Weir, whose earlier, similarly survival-themed breakthrough novel “The Martian” was adapted by director Ridley Scott in 2015. That movie put Matt Damon alone on Mars and made the act of thinking through one life-or-death problem after another the engine of the story. The result was a critical and commercial hit that earned seven Oscar nominations, including best picture.

Put someone out in space long enough and the story can go in many directions. Sometimes it’s about survival. Sometimes it turns inward. Sometimes it gets more horrific or even darkly comic. Here are eight of our favorite movies about people lost or stranded in space. Watch them somewhere with plenty of oxygen.

Like the mythical city of Brigadoon, Lisa Kudrow’s “The Comeback” has returned to television after many years away, with the difference that time has not stood still for its inhabitants, older in a changing world that values them less and which they navigate with less assurance.

Kudrow, who created and writes the series with Michael Patrick King, was in her youth a player in the twilight of network-dominated television, cast in a smart, influential show with wide, multigenerational appeal; in a quantitative sense, at least, everything would be downhill from there, as the medium transformed and transformed again. “The Comeback” premiered in 2005, just a year after the end of “Friends”; the first season addressed the rise of reality TV, and the next season, in 2014, riffed on dark, streaming “prestige” television.

The new (and final) season, which is both timely and speculative, addresses the impact of artificial intelligence on the medium and the industry, hinting at a dystopian future; this gives it a moral, even political component, not to say a sense of urgency. Not surprisingly, “The Comeback,” as a thing made by humans, comes down firmly on their side — it’s a manifesto at times — even as it acknowledges, uncomfortably, that computer-produced content might be “good enough.”

Once again, Kudrow plays Valerie Cherish, who, at 60 — the phrase “of a certain age” repeats throughout the series — still qualifies as a working actor. But she’s been pushed into the further reaches of the profession: Her two-season cozy mystery series, “Mrs. Hatt” (“part-time gardener, solves crime, husband is an ex-police chief”), is on no one’s radar but her own, having shown on Epix. A day’s work on a “no-budget” film is even less rewarding than she had imagined; she lasted all of two episodes on “The Traitors.” Paddling hard to stay current, to improve her brand, she bumbles through a podcast, “Cherish the Time,” without any idea what to do with that time; employs a social media person, Patience (Ella Stiller), with no discernible impact; and posts pictures of herself holding products in hopes of “future collabs.”

Still, she is not poor. Valerie and husband Mark (Damian Young), have moved from Brentwood to a condominium with a view in the (real life) Sierra Towers, overlooking the Sunset Strip, opening the latest “new chapter” in their lives, though just what that chapter for them is hard to say. Mark has lost his job in finance — “You told a joke at work at a time when jokes were illegal,” Valerie says, trying to cheer him, “no one cares now” — but left on a golden parachute; now he builds his day around pickleball. A potential role in a reality show, “Finance Dudes,” isn’t working out to anyone’s satisfaction. He’s on the verge of a three-quarter-life crisis.

When her self-promoting manager/publicist Billy (Dan Bucatinsky) comes to her waving an offer for a new series, for a new network, in which she’ll star, Valerie is more than intrigued, if taken aback when he tells her that it’s being written by AI. (He isn’t supposed to know.) Network head Brandon (Andrew Scott, as blandly discomfiting as his Moriarty on “Sherlock”) assures her that it is “within the Writers Guild agreement,” but that it is also a secret — which will account for a lot of comedy going forward, secrets and lies being the very stuff of the form. “AI is really extraordinary,” he tells Valerie. “After all, it picked you.”

It’s also created a wholly generic multicamera sitcom, “How’s That?,” in which Valerie’s character, Beth, as she describes it, “runs a cute, charming old New England B&B with the help of her hunk nephew, Bo — so Beth and Bo, B&B.” (“Viewers want a break from the complicated confusing storylines of all these dark streaming shows,” says a network exec.) Her eager supporting cast has no idea that the series is being written by anything other than its human faces, unhappily married couple Josh (John Early) and Mary (Abbi Jacobson). Josh, who thinks of himself as “the voice of women of a certain age,” is precious about the jokes he manages to get into the script; Mary couldn’t care less. Untalented writing assistant Marco (Tony Macht) only wants “to get, like, a really nice house.” The AI, meanwhile, is personified to the cast and crew, who know nothing about it, as someone named “Al,” who “works remotely.”

One by one, the old company is introduced into the new season, Valerie finds Jane (Laura Silverman), her former documentarian, working as a cashier at Trader Joe’s, having tired of scuffling as a filmmaker, “begging people to care about the things that I cared about.” When Valerie lets it slip that her new series is AI-generated — “but don’t tell anyone ‘cause that’s a secret” — Jane is inspired to pick up her camera again. Lance Barber will eventually rejoin as screenwriter Paulie G., Valerie’s old nemesis. Robert Michael Morris, who played Mickey, Valerie’s hairdresser and best friend, in earlier seasons, passed away in 2017; Jack O’Brien, as Tommy, occupies a version of that space here.

Valerie may be only moderately successful, but she isn’t a hack. She has an Emmy for “Seeing Red,” the drama at the center of Season 2. She pushes back against the costumer (Benito Skinner) who wants to put her in a caftan. She knows her craft and is nominally proud of belonging to a union. She’s not a diva, but she has her pride. And that she is loyal, even when it does her no good, makes her easy to like. Thrust half-wittingly onto this cutting edge — being the first in an AI comedy, Mark tells her, “is like saying, ‘I was the first one to eat an arm in the Donner Party’” — she is wholly sympathetic, and, eventually, as things bend toward horror in a last-act revelation, a hero.

Though the subject is serious, the approach this time is light and farcical. Partially abandoning the documentary aesthetic of its predecessors — the first season had the look of amateur video, and the second of guerrilla filmmaking — much of this season is shot as a conventional, non-meta television show, allowing us access to private conversations and meetings without having to account for Jane and her crew, or requiring the players to act as if they’re being watched. Paradoxically, without pretending to reality, it makes some things more real.

Playing himself, director James Burrows, whom Valerie convinces to helm her pilot, notes that the jokes AI writes might come fast but are never better than obvious. “Surprising only comes from a group of writers huddled in a corner beating themselves up to beat out a better show,” he says. And just as Valerie is not a character an algorithm could produce, Kudrow is not an actor a machine could ever imagine. She’s no Tilly Norwood, or Tilly Norwood at 60, or Tilly Norwood with quirks applied. There’s no one like her— other than her — for the learning machines to scrape.

You should never settle for “good enough” when better, or best, is available. But that choice is on you.

It has been nearly three years since Hollywood writers went on a historic strike that lasted 148 days and ushered in an extraordinary period of labor unrest that virtually shut down the film and TV business.

Now, writers are poised to commence another round of bargaining with the major studios on a new three-year film and TV contract. Few observers think the union is girding for another showdown, especially at a time when many of its members are struggling to find work amid media consolidation and belt-tightening.

But in advance of negotiations that begin on Monday , union leaders are eager to dispel any perception that they might have scaled back their demands.

“Our members have shown many times that they’re willing to fight for what we need as a collective group,” WGA West President Michele Mulroney said in an interview. “And there’s no exception here.”

With its current contract expiring on May 1, the WGA hopes to improve its members’ healthcare plans, increase streaming residuals and expand AI protections.

Michele Mulroney speaks as the Screen Actors Guild (SAG-AFTRA) and Writers Guild of America (WGA) join GLAAD in releasing the 11TH Annual GLAAD Studio Responsibility Index at The Village at Ed Gould Plaza Los Angeles LGBT Center in Los Angeles, California, on September 14, 2023.

(Michael Tran/AFP via Getty Images)

Ellen Stutzman, the union’s executive director, said despite popular belief, the studios have weathered the transition from cable television to streaming “very well,” citing their efforts to maximize revenue with streaming bundling, rising subscription fees and advertising revenue.

“Writers are watching as Netflix and Paramount are fighting it out to acquire Warner Bros… Paramount is spending $81 billion,” said Stutzman. “There’s money for a fair deal for writers.”

The union leaders agree that this year’s negotiations are all focused on the sustainability of a writer’s career.

A spokesperson from the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represents the major studios in negotiations, said in a statement that they look forward “to engaging in a constructive and collaborative bargaining process with the WGA. Through continued good-faith dialogue, we are confident we can reach balanced solutions that support talented writers while sustaining the long-term success and stability of our industry and its workforce.”

A top priority for the WGA is to increase the caps that companies contribute to the union’s healthcare plan. Union officials say the current cap has remain unchanged for two decades as healthcare contributions have steadily declined due to fewer writers working.

AI is also top of mind for the WGA.

In 2023, the guild secured various AI protections by establishing that AI isn’t a writer and nothing it produces is considered literary material.

But as major studios start to make deals with AI companies, like Disney’s $1 billion investment into OpenAI’s Sora platform, many writers are concerned about how their work could be used.

“AI is using [studios’] IP, which is stuff that we wrote to license these models,” said John August, the co-host of the “Scriptnotes” podcast and WGA’s negotiating committee co-chair. “With the Sora deal, it seems clear that the companies intend to monetize this IP for use with AI.”

August says the union will be skeptical toward arguments that it’s still too early to seek more safeguards around such a nascent industry, citing the union’s past history with the rise of DVDs and the internet and how profoundly those technologies changed the compensation for writers.

“If you’re taking the work that we created to generate AI outputs, we are owed money. They’re using our work to do something down the road,” added August.

WGA’s negotiating committee also is looking to boost streaming residuals, expand the minimum number of people allowed in a writers’ room and add protections for scribes working on pilots.

“We very much hope that lessons were learned in 2023 and that the AMPTP will come to the table ready to take our proposal seriously and to make a fair deal, and to do that quickly,” Mulroney said. “It provides stability for the companies and for our membership. It’s better for everybody.”

WGA is entering contract negotiations nearly a month after the actors’ union, SAG-AFTRA, began its bargaining sessions. Last week,
the AMPTP said it was extending negotiations another seven days.

AUSTIN, Texas — One of the most anticipated events at this year’s SXSW Film & TV Festival wasn’t a movie at all, but a speaking appearance by director Steven Spielberg. The talk, a live taping of the podcast “The Big Picture” lead by co-host Sean Fennessey, covered many aspects of the Hollywood legend’s career, with a through line of sci-fi and space aliens in conjunction with Spielberg’s upcoming alien invasion thriller “Disclosure Day,” due June 12.

Though no real details about the new film were revealed, references to it peppered the conversation as if it were very much on Spielberg’s mind — the film he was ostensibly there to promote.

To an audience that included filmmakers Robert Rodriguez and Daniel Kwan, the event began with a clip reel that served as a reminder (as if anyone in the packed hotel ballroom needed one) of just how influential the 79-year-old filmmaker is. A selection of Spielberg’s work plays like a trailer for the idea of movies themselves; this one included “Jaws,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” “E.T.” “Schindler’s List,” “Jurassic Park,” “The Sugarland Express,” “Catch Me If You Can,” “Munich” and many more.

Fennessey noted that Spielberg wanted to make 1977’s “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” his first sci-fi movie about the existence of aliens from other worlds, even before making 1975’s “Jaws.” Spielberg went further, saying he had actually wanted to make “Close Encounters” — then just referred to as “The UFO Movie” — even before 1974’s “Sugarland Express.”

Asked about President Obama’s recent comments about the possible existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and how his own feelings may have evolved over the years, Spielberg said, “I think that for one thing, when President Obama made that comment, I thought, ‘Oh my God, this is so great for “Disclosure Day,”’ and then, two days later, he stepped back the comment and said what he believed in was life in the cosmos, which of course everybody should believe that because no one should ever think that we are the only intelligent civilization in the entire universe. So I’ve always believed, even as a kid, that we were not alone. So that just goes without saying. The big question is: Are we alone now?”

He added this interest was “reinvigorated” by a 2017 New York Times article about U.S. Navy pilots seeing unexplained aerial phenomenon, then by a 2023 Congressional subcommittee hearing on the topic.

“I don’t know any more than any of you do,” Spielberg said, “but I have a very strong, sticky suspicion that we are not alone here on Earth right now. And I made a movie about that.”

Spielberg and “The Big Picture” co-host Sean Fennessey taping a live podcast at SXSW on Friday.

(Tibrina Hobson / Getty Images)

As to how he feels about that possibility, Spielberg added, “I’m not afraid of any aliens, there or here. I have no fears about that, whatsoever. I think our movie does take into consideration, without giving too much away, the social dislocation that could occur, theologically, if it would be announced that there’s evidence — not only evidence, where it’s interaction that’s has been going on for decades, that we are not just now finding out about. It is going to cause a disruption in a lot of belief systems, but I don’t think it’s a lethal disruption at all.”

Among other topics that were discussed, Spielberg revealed he is developing a western that would shoot in Texas, though he was reluctant to discuss it in any further detail except to say it would contain “no tropes.”

He also said he is not on any social media, but did install Instagram on his phone once for two weeks and felt as if he had been abducted by aliens for the amount of time he lost.

To that end, he also noted, with comic frustration, how he himself has never had any sort of alien encounter.

”I made a movie called ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind.’ I haven’t even had a close encounter of the first or second kind,” Spielberg said. “Where’s the justice in that? If you’re listening out there, I’m talking to you.”

There was a brief moment of confusion when Fennessey asked Spielberg for his thoughts on AI and Spielberg wasn’t clear if he was asking about his own 2001 movie or the broader topic of artificial intelligence.

Once that was cleared up (Fennessey meant the latter, a serious labor issue in Hollywood), Spielberg noted he has not used AI on any of his own films. “I don’t want to go into a whole rant about AI because I am for AI in many different disciplines. I am not for AI if it replaces a creative individual.”

Speaking to the theatrical experience, Spielberg made a brief allusion to the flare-up around comments by Timothée Chalamet regarding the popularity of opera and ballet in relation to the movies.

He noted that he does not decry the at-home streaming experience and that he works with Netflix, but that “for me, the real experience comes when we can influence a community to congregate in a strange dark space. All us are strangers and, at the end of a really good movie experience, we are all united with a whole bunch of feelings that we walk into the daylight with or into the nighttime with. And there’s nothing like that. I mean, it happens in movies, it happens at concerts and it happens in ballet and opera.”

Here there was a round of applause from the audience. “And we want that sustained and we want that to go forever.”

Spielberg noted how many of his favorite filmmakers, including David Lean and Billy Wilder and more recent examples such as Paul Thomas Anderson and Christopher Nolan, are always making films that feel different from what they have done before. He sees himself as part of that same school.

“If we’re just not making the same sequel over and over and over again and they’re not the same Marvel title over and over and over again, we all get a real chance to experience something, which is freshness,” Spielberg said. “And that is why I don’t judge my accomplishments based on a single film.”

The index provider reviews the S&P 500 every quarter using rigorous criteria on market capitalisation, profitability, liquidity and sector balance to ensure it reflects the largest and most representative top 500 US companies.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The latest update will bring Vertiv Holdings, Lumentum Holdings, Coherent Corp. and EchoStar Corporation into the index.

They replace Match Group, Molina Healthcare, Lamb Weston Holdings and Paycom Software, with the changes taking effect before the market opens on Monday 23 March.

With trillions of dollars in assets tracking the S&P 500, the rebalance typically prompts buying from passive funds, often providing a short-term lift to new members.

Shortly after the S&P Global announcement, on Friday 6 March, all four companies’ shares rose on average 8% as investors began anticipating the increased flow.

Three out of the four incoming firms supply critical infrastructure for the AI boom, from power and cooling systems to high-speed optical components.

According to S&P Global, the changes show how sustained AI investment has become a structural force in the market, to the point that it is reshaping the index composition.

Big Tech is guiding for roughly €600bn in AI spending this year alone.

Vertiv

Vertiv Holdings specialises in critical digital infrastructure, offering power management, thermal management and modular systems that support high-density computing in data centres.

The company has seen explosive demand for liquid cooling and high-power solutions as AI workloads drive energy consumption far beyond conventional levels.

According to Vertiv’s fourth quarter 2025 earnings, released in February, organic orders grew 252% year-on-year in the final quarter, pushing its backlog to $15bn (€13bn) –– a 109% rise from the previous year.

The book-to-bill ratio reached approximately 2.9 times and full-year 2026 guidance points to organic sales growth of 27% to 29%, indicating very strong requisition.

The firm’s strong performance reflects its central role in enabling the hyperscalers’ expansion of AI infrastructure.

Inclusion in the S&P 500 is expected to increase visibility and liquidity through passive fund inflows. This milestone underscores Vertiv’s evolution into a key enabler of the physical infrastructure powering AI growth.

Lumentum

Lumentum Holdings develops advanced optical components, lasers and transceivers that deliver the ultra-high-speed connectivity required inside data centres and across communications networks.

Its products are essential for handling the massive bandwidth demands of AI model training and inference.

In early March, Nvidia announced a multi-year strategic partnership with Lumentum that includes a $2bn (€1.7bn) investment to expand capacity, advance US-based manufacturing and deepen research and development collaborations.

This partnership came alongside multibillion-dollar purchase commitments for advanced laser components.

The S&P 500 addition elevates the profile of optical technologies as a foundational layer in next-generation AI infrastructure.

For Lumentum, the move reinforces its position as a critical supplier in the race to scale AI systems efficiently and at unprecedented speeds.

Coherent

Coherent Corp. focuses on photonics and laser technologies, with a strong emphasis on silicon photonics and high-speed optical interconnects designed for large-scale AI computing clusters.

The company has repositioned its portfolio to tackle latency and power-efficiency challenges in hyperscale environments.

Similar to Lumentum, the company recently disclosed a parallel strategic partnership with Nvidia, also including a $2bn (€1.7bn) investment and multibillion-dollar purchase commitments for advanced optics.

The collaboration targets technologies vital for future data centre architectures and supports expanding US manufacturing.

The S&P 500 inclusion recognises Coherent’s transformation and the structural demand from global AI build-outs.

Greater institutional interest and enhanced liquidity are widely expected once the rebalance takes effect. This development cements the company’s role as an indispensable partner in the infrastructure underpinning rapid advances in AI.

EchoStar

EchoStar Corporation is the outlier of the group as it is the only company being added to the S&P 500 that is not directly tied to the expansion of AI infrastructure.

The firm delivers satellite communications, video entertainment and broadband services, primarily through its DISH network operations.

The addition brings dedicated exposure to the communications sector, balancing the heavy tilt toward AI infrastructure providers in this quarterly update.

In line with its fellow entrants, EchoStar has delivered triple-digit gains over the past year, reflecting resilience in the telecom space amid broader technology shifts.

The move complements the data centre focus of the other new companies and underscores how communications continues to shape the composition of the US’ flagship equity index.

The quarterly adjustments follow a pattern of the S&P 500 evolving alongside technological shifts. While passive inflows deliver an immediate boost, the longer-term impact lies in better alignment with the sectors driving the modern economy.

Just in time for the Oscars, Tilly Norwood, and by extension her creator, Eline van der Velden, gave actors at every level an unexpected gift — the chance to breathe a little easier.

AI will not be replacing you any time soon.

On Tuesday, the AI phenomenon known as Tilly debuted a single and music video titled “Take the Lead.” In it, Tilly sings a self-celebratory, pro-AI anthem with the big-eyed feisty longing of an algorithm marked “Disney princess: Big song” while she wanders through increasingly fantastic self-affirming scenarios that scream “Plus ‘Barbie.’”

Van der Velden was clearly trying to persuade actors to embrace the possibilities of AI but like Timothée Chalamet, who managed to prove that opera and ballet have many devoted fans by publicly suggesting the opposite, her attempt will likely backfire. The underlying message of the video, at least to performers, appears to be: Relax — AI hasn’t figured out how to lip sync properly, much less act.

It’s a bit of good news in a time of AI anxiety, some of which was Tilly-induced. Last year, Van der Velden, a Dutch actor and founder of the production company Particle6, debuted Tilly, via Instagram, as the “world’s first AI actress.” Around the time the account hit 50,000 followers, Van der Velden announced that several talent agents were interested in representing Tilly. Not Van der Velden, but Tilly Norwood, a “performer” who did not exist.

For a few minutes, Hollywood lost its collective mind. Not only were creators and performers facing a future in which their work, bodies and faces could be scanned and fed into an algorithm capable of imitating writing styles or creating images of actors doing things they never did (in a recent AI video, Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt duke it out on a war-torn rooftop), now some feared they would be competing for jobs with “actors” who could work 24 hours a day, required no health benefits and would never demand bowls of M&Ms with the green ones removed.

SAG-AFTRA, which had just ended a strike caused in part by concerns about AI, protested Tilly and the use of “stolen performances to put actors out of work.” Various actors were outraged and some called for the interested talent agencies to be identified. Even Emily Blunt was publicly disconcerted, begging Hollywood agencies to “please stop taking away our human connection.”

Van der Velden quickly responded, insisting that Tilly was “not a replacement for a human being, but a creative work — a piece of art … a new tool — a new paintbrush.”

Then, on Tuesday, “Tilly” released a music video that seems to argue the exact opposite.

In the video, which appears over the message “Can’t wait to go to the Oscars,” the computer-generated young woman trips through a montage of “famous person moments,” as Tilly insists that she is not a puppet but a star; she encourages all actors to embrace and use AI, to own their creativity and “be free.”

A note prefacing the video states that “18 real humans” were involved in its production (including Van der Velden who is the basis of the performance), who provide the subtext for Tilly warbling: “They say it’s not real, that it’s fake, but I’m a human, make no mistake.”

Whatever Van der Velden and her team hoped to achieve, one thing is very clear: Emily Blunt has nothing to fear from Tilly Norwood.

The questionable merits of the song, performance and production value aside, the video is the best argument yet for why AI “performers” are a limited threat. As Tilly walks the streets of London, poses for selfies, signs autographs, appears on talk shows, performs live in front of enormous audiences, interacts with photographers, we are reminded that Tilly could never do any of this. AI performances are, by their very nature, limited to a screen.

Instagram fame is a real thing and can be monetarily beneficial, just as animated and digitally enhanced characters can connect deeply with audiences. But beyond her ability to raise the spectre of wholly coded “performers” constructed from borrowed bits of humans (which, as anyone who has read or seen “Frankenstein” knows, never ends well), Tilly doesn’t appear to have anything like star power.

And to consider her as existing separate from her creators is like imagining that the ventriloquist dummy Charlie McCarthy could have a career, and an agent, separate from the real performer Edgar Bergen.

Though Charlie did have the advantage of being able to be seen live and in person.

Watching Tilly, one is reminded that the magic of actors is that they are human. Audiences are, after all, human too and whether facing a stage or a screen, we are captivated by certain performers’ ability to bring all manner of characters and stories alive, while also being, as Us Weekly says, “just like us.”

People with bodies that age and change, people who fall in love, get messy, say dumb things, say smart things, fall prey to illness and accidents, shop at Trader Joe’s, end up in court or trip when about to receive an Oscar.

Their faulty, glorious humanity allows them to connect to their art, but it also connects them to us. We may never get an Oscar or be able to masterfully deliver a Shakespeare soliloquy on a chat show, but we know what it’s like to trip or say something dumb or experience aging, illness or accident.

You can’t replace actors with algorithms, even if/when someone comes up with something more convincing than Tilly, because actors are not just about performances. They are people who are alive in the world and no amount of coding can replicate that.