Kane Parsons Says He's Anti-AI. I Get It. But Refusing AI Is Also a Signal, and a Total 'No' Won't Last

Let me start by saying something nice, because I mean it.

Kane Parsons is one of the most exciting young filmmakers around. The man turned a creepy internet meme, the endless yellow rooms of the Backrooms, into an A24 feature, and landed that deal as a teenager. I'm a fan.

So when he says he's against generative AI, I'm not here to dunk on him. I'm here to disagree with him, properly, because I think the argument deserves it.

What he actually said

In an interview reported by Variety, Parsons said:

"If I could snap my fingers and make generative AI disappear forever, I probably would. Creatively, I get no enjoyment from using those tools. It defeats the purpose entirely for me."

He also said AI could make some VFX tasks less laborious someday, but that right now it's hard to discuss objectively because of "genuinely harmful consequences already happening". He called generative AI "a symptom of a broader cultural and economic rot", and said he'd rather interrogate it in his art than use it.

That's a thoughtful position. It's not a rant. So let's take it seriously.

The part I agree with

Let me be fair first.

The harms are real. Artists' work has been scraped without consent. Junior jobs in illustration, dubbing and VFX are under pressure. The internet is filling up with low-effort AI slop. Parsons is right that pretending none of this is happening would be dishonest.

And his personal choice is completely valid. If a tool gives you no joy, don't use it. Nobody should force a painter to use a camera.

My problem isn't with his choice. It's with the idea underneath it: that no artist needs these tools, and that the purpose of art is defeated by them.

Now let's talk about costly signals

There's a concept from biology and economics called costly signalling. The classic example is the peacock's tail. It's heavy, it's impractical, it makes the bird easier to catch. And that's exactly why it works as a signal. Only a strong bird can afford to carry it.

Humans do the same thing all the time. Handwritten letters in the age of WhatsApp. Shooting on film when digital is cheaper. "Hand-made" on a label. The message isn't just I made this. It's I made this the hard way, and I could afford to.

Right now, refusing AI is one of the strongest costly signals an artist can send. It says: my work is authentic, my process is human, I'm on the right side. And because AI makes so much so cheaply, the refusal itself becomes valuable. It sets you apart.

I don't say that cynically. I think Parsons genuinely means it. But it's worth noticing that the refusal is also part of the brand. It's a signal to fans, to collaborators and to an industry that's anxious about the future. Signals are powerful. They're also not the same thing as an argument.

Why a total "no" won't hold

Here's my real problem with the blanket position. The line keeps moving, and it always has.

Cinema has fought this exact battle before. Sound was going to kill acting. Colour was vulgar. CGI was soulless. Digital cameras were cheating. Every time, the "no" was loud at first, and then the tool quietly became part of the craft, and the best artists used it to do things nobody had imagined.

Generative tools are heading the same way, just faster. They're already sneaking into ordinary software: cleaning up audio, removing objects from frames, generating rough storyboards, speeding up rotoscoping. Many artists already use some of this without calling it AI at all.

Even Martin Scorsese, hardly a tech bro, has joined an AI company as an adviser, saying cinema is "a young medium" and "we have to be open to how it can evolve".

So what does a total "no" even mean in five years? No noise reduction? No auto-captioning? No AI-assisted colour matching? At some point, the line becomes impossible to draw. A complete refusal isn't a principle you can hold forever. It's a position that will quietly close in on itself.

What I'd argue instead

The better question isn't "AI or no AI". It's:

• Consent: was the tool trained on work the artists agreed to share?

• Credit: are humans being credited and paid properly?

• Control: is the artist using the tool, or is the tool replacing the artist?

• Honesty: is the audience being told what they're looking at?

Get those right, and the tool becomes like any other: a brush, a camera, a sampler. Get them wrong, and yes, it's rot.

The other side, honestly

To be fair to Parsons and everyone who agrees with him: many artists argue that the "it's just a tool" line ignores how these models were built, and that until consent and compensation are sorted, refusing is the only ethical choice. Some also believe the joy and meaning of art lie precisely in the struggle that AI removes. That's a serious view, held by serious people, and it isn't going away.

I just don't think the answer is to wish the tools out of existence. They're not going anywhere. The fight worth having is over how they're used, and who gets to benefit.

Kane, if you ever read this: make your next film however you want. I'll be first in line. I just think the future of art is going to be messier, and more interesting, than a single snap of the fingers.

For more on how tech is reshaping culture, read my piece on GTA 6 and the next creator wave.

---

Vishal Waghela is the Co-Founder of AltBollywood and a proud neo-generalist who refuses to pick a lane. Film, music, memes, fashion, AI, internet subcultures: if pop culture touches it, he's already three rabbit holes deep. He writes the way he lives online, loud, emotional, a little chaotic and always honest about why culture makes us feel things. Come argue with him on Instagram at @vishal.waghe1a.