How is Generative AI Reshaping Hollywood?

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: “How is Generative AI Reshaping Hollywood?”

Podcast: Is Business Broken?
Host: Questrom School of Business, Boston University
Date: April 2, 2026
Guests:

• Roma Murphy, Co-chair of the AI Committee at the Animation Guild
• Tim Harold, Visual Effects Artist and Video Editor
• Eric Barmak, CEO of Wild Sheep Content
• Carrie Morwej, Professor of Marketing at BU Questrom
  Host: Kurt Nickish

---

Overview

This episode explores the disruptive impact of generative AI on Hollywood: from new creative possibilities and increased efficiency to existential threats for jobs, artistic integrity, and diversity. The conversation cuts through the hype, drawing on the real-world stakes for artists, production professionals, and the next generation of creative talent. Panelists debate whether AI is a tool to empower creators or a force that threatens to upend the entire industry.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. AI as Assistant vs. Replacement

• Tim Harold describes how AI has rapidly advanced from a tool for simple image generation to handling complex VFX processes (lighting passes, face replacement), making previously expensive tasks feasible for smaller projects.
  • “It puts some things into reach that are just expensive otherwise.” [02:56, A]
  • AI is currently serving as a powerful assistant but raises the possibility of replacing lead artists in some workflows.

2. AI and the Elimination of Entry-Level Jobs

• Eric Barmak explains that tasks like script coverage—once the domain of junior assistants—are now handled faster and better by AI:
  • “That’s done in about 20 minutes by ChatGPT. And it’s frankly done better than the junior executive could do it.” [03:37, D]
• Roma Murphy raises concerns about this automation, especially the loss of crucial entry points into the industry for underrepresented groups:
  • “If we’re looking at a future where jobs like that don’t exist—or are hired at a lower rate than they used to—what is the entry point for people of color into the industry? What is the entry point for disabled people? What is the entry point for anyone who does not come from the ruling class?” [08:12, C]
• Tim Harold echoes the worry that the “tedious” on-ramps teach essential craft and skills which could become lost if AI replaces these learning opportunities.

3. Artistic Judgment and the Limits of AI Recommendation

• Roma points out AI’s reliance on historical, often biased data. This could limit innovation and perpetuate harmful industry stereotypes.
  • “AI can only make predictions based off of the data that it already has... there’s a pretty significant bias in terms of what movies it would say would do well.” [07:08, C]
  • Example: K Pop Demon Hunters was dismissed as “niche” by gatekeepers but defied predictions to become a hit—a nuance AI would likely miss.

4. Algorithm Aversion and Creative Identity

• Carrie Morwej provides psychological context: creators feel threatened by AI not just for economic reasons but because it undermines professional identity.
  • “What really scares me is ChatGPT replacing the things that I do. Am I training my replacement when I’m using these tools?” [11:59, E]
• Discusses “algorithm aversion”—resistance not only because AI is a black box, but because it threatens what is meaningful about creative work.

5. Democratization vs. Over-Saturation

• Roma notes that while AI tools promise democratization, true economic sustainability and artistic recognition remain elusive for the majority.
  • “There simply are not enough eyeballs to watch everything if everyone is making their own movie.” [13:45, C]
• Eric highlights that while more YouTube creators now earn substantial incomes than traditional Hollywood workers, only a small percentage make a living.
  • Mentions the decline in the use of high-profile AI tools (SORA 2): “Its usage is fairly dormant and it’s gone down about 35% per month... people got bored and... they want to watch good stuff.” [15:53, D]

6. Labor Struggles and Union Negotiations

• The 2023-2024 Hollywood writer and actor strike was triggered in large part by concerns over generative AI.
• AI’s promise to “cut the length of time to produce something and the number of people needed to do it” threatens job stability and traditional compensation models.
  • “The reason [artists] pursued this career is so that they could make a living off of doing the thing that they love... If it only takes them six weeks to do what used to take them six months, maybe they’ll make ten times as many of that project. So suddenly what we’re looking at is a universe where people who used to be able to depend on six months of work now can only depend on six weeks of work.” [17:31, C]

7. The Human Element and Artistic Value

• Carrie Morwej describes the “effort heuristic”—people value art not just for outcome but the human effort behind it.
  • “If it took an artist more time to make a painting, that painting’s worth more.” [20:23, E]
  • Predicts a coming collapse in compensation and value due to rapid acceleration and commoditization of creative output.

8. Future Visions: Art vs. Product

• Tim Harold:
  • “My worry is that the industry is swaying towards product over art. And in that world, the quality of art doesn’t matter as much and people like me and other artisans’ role gets diminished.” [21:55, B]
• Eric Barmak:
  • Sees creative opportunity with more accessible tools, but warns of a world where consumption shifts from art to “slop.”
  • “Most of the change in content consumption right now is what people are watching on Instagram... 15 or 20 second clips that could probably, I don’t think anyone on this call would consider to be art, but is time spent away from Hollywood.” [23:26, D]
• Roma Murphy:
  • Urges unions and policymakers to establish protections.
  • “My vision of the future at this point is that unions continue to bargain and negotiate for the best possible terms that we can and use our leverage... The ubiquity of AI at this point is a concerted effort and it has a lot to do with the broader data conversation.” [24:28, C]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On AI’s Limits in Artistic Judgment

  • “...If you were to give those prompts to a generative AI model, oh my God, there’s no telling what you would get out of it. Maybe suddenly all the characters are carrying knives.” [10:44, C]

• On What Makes Art Valuable

  • “What differentiates art from slop? What makes something an Oscar-winning movie? What makes something special because it’s human?” [26:35, E]

• On the Decline of AI Novelty

  • “People wanted to experiment... then they got bored and were like, actually, I don’t want to spend my time creating AI slop. I want to watch good stuff.” [16:16, D]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• AI and VFX/Production Tools: 02:18 – 03:25
• Automating Script Coverage & Entry-Level Jobs: 03:37 – 09:21
• Bias in AI Recommendations & Barriers to Entry: 07:08 – 09:21
• Skill Loss & Mentorship Concerns: 09:21 – 10:57
• Algorithm Aversion and Maker Identity: 10:54 – 12:58
• Democratization, Indie Creation & Platform Shifts: 12:58 – 16:46
• Strikes, Labor, and Short-Term/Long-Term Jobs: 16:46 – 19:09
• Psychology of Art Valuation (“effort heuristic”): 20:10 – 21:12
• Personal Futures & Industry Predictions: 21:36 – 24:28
• Unions, Regulation, and AI’s Broader Impact: 24:28 – 25:54
• What Differentiates Art from Product: 25:54 – 26:55

---

Panelists’ Closing Visions

• Tim Harold: Hopes for a future where artists collaborate around a shared craft, but fears a diminished role as industry shifts to “product over art.” [21:36]
• Eric Barmak: Believes in democratized opportunity, but deeply concerned about content quality and the gravitational pull of big data and platform economics. [22:44]
• Roma Murphy: Advocates for union action and regulatory guardrails to protect livelihoods and artistic value, seeing the risk not in AI’s capability, but in producers’ willingness to cut corners. [24:28]
• Carrie Morwej: Calls for a reckoning about what makes work meaningful, what’s lost when craft and effort are devalued, and how this impacts not just film, but all creative industries. [25:54]

---

Overall Tone: Thoughtful, pragmatic, at times humorous, but suffused with a sense of urgency and deep professional concern.

Essential Question:
Is generative AI in Hollywood a tool for complementing human expertise—or a replacement that threatens the very foundation of creative work? The answer, according to the panel: it’s both, and the stakes have never been higher.

---

Transcript

[A]

You're listening to is business broken, a podcast from the mehrotra institute for business, markets and society at boston university questrom school of business. I'm kurt nickish. In the TV series Black Mirror, there's an episode titled Joan is Awful. In it, a woman discovers her life is being turned into a prestige drama in real time by a quantum computer called Streamberry Source Joan lives in reality.

[B]

When Source Joan watches the TV show Joan Is Awful, she sees you playing her. That show is the fictive level we're on right now here. The fictive level, yes. Fictive level one. Like I said, this is an adaptation of Joan's life. You're in a show right now.

[A]

When this episode aired in 2023, it was kind of a satirical warning. But today in 2026, with tools like Sora 2 rendering cinematic scenes in minutes and AI actresses like Tilly Norw making headlines, that satire now feels more like a business plan. With generative artificial intelligence, we've moved past the if and into the how and today we're asking, is AI a complement to work in Hollywood or a substitute that eventually replaces it? Joining us today are four experts who are thinking deeply about this new reality, each from a different perspective. A big thanks to all of them for taking part in this conversation, starting with Roma Murphy and co chair of the AI Committee at the Animation Guild.

[C]

Thank you for having me. So excited to be here.

[A]

Tim Harold, who's a visual effects artist and video editor.

[B]

Great to be here. Thanks for having me.

[A]

Eric Barmak, CEO of Wild Sheep Content.

[D]

Thanks for having me.

[A]

And Carrie Morwej, professor of marketing at BU Questrom School of Business.

[E]

Hi, Kurt. It's great to be back.

[A]

Tim, you're kind of in the day to day reality of this as a visual effects artist and editor. Two years ago we were just prompting images. Now you're using AI for like lighting passes and complicated processes. Are these tools your assistants, are they becoming the lead artist? Like, how do you use it in your work and how do you. How do you feel about it?

[B]

I worked on a project where the concept was that a baby would be speaking like an adult. Obviously you can't get a baby to speak fluent English.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And I. Without AI, it would be something that a heavy, a big VFX studio would need to do. It would probably involve 3D modeling, a ton of animation, and honestly, it just wouldn't work on a project of that scale due to budget limitations and. Got it.

[A]

So it puts some things into reach that are just expensive otherwise.

[B]

Yeah, exactly. And I think for certain stuff like that, it creates a really good result. I mean, deep fakes. And that kind of use of AI has been steadily improving over the last couple years. And I think it's honestly one of the best options for any sort of face replacement that's out there.

[A]

Okay, Eric, you've been testing this yourself, everything from GPT5 to the latest animation models. What was your experience using these tools and what kind of makes you worried about them?

[D]

You know, I run a production company. We get 25 or 30 scripts per week. You would have a junior assistant or a junior executive who would provide script coverage. And that would be their entire job for that week is covering those 30 scripts. That's done in about 20 minutes by ChatGPT. And it's frankly done better than the junior executive could do it. There's a lot of technical crafts in terms of dubbing, in terms of rotoscoping on vfx, in terms of pre vis work. All of that stuff is just becoming more efficient. And I don't think we can say that we're going to protect a number of jobs that are kind of going away because we just simply can't. I think you have to look at the economics of what's driving AI adoption. And that is largely driven by the seven biggest companies in the world right now. And those companies, the Magnificent Seven, account for $22 trillion in stock market cap. They make up nearly 64% of the Nasdaq 100. Their combined value is bigger than the UK, Canada and Japanese economies combined. And so where I come from as like a doom and gloom person is not so much that Hollywood is going to be revolutionized by AI overnight, but that there's a much bigger game being played here, which is big data. How ChatGPT works in a bunch of surrounding businesses and how these companies are incented by to grow their stocks so dramatically outweighs the sort of aristocratic notion of how Hollywood is managed today, which is, relatively speaking, a small industry.

[A]

I get that the economic incentives there are just. I mean, these are powerful market forces, right, that unions in the industry are contending with.

[C]

Do you mind if I jump in with this one? Because I actually have some close experience with this.

[A]

Yeah, please, Roma.

[C]

I've been an intern doing that kind of script coverage before in the past. I can say that at this point it can generate a pretty functional summary. They may need to go in and change a few things that it hallucinated. But the thing it can't quite do yet is the recommend pass or Consider side of the coverage. So for those who don't know when you're doing script coverage, you do do that summary of the script, but you also have a section where you talk about whether you would recommend that the script be made, whether you'd consider, which means that the writer is talented, but this might not be the best project for the company studio, or you might pass. And so in a case like that, you're drawing on industry trends from the past, you're drawing on market trends as a whole. And one thing I'd be concerned about with AI providing that kind of recommendation, pass or consider is that AI can only predictions based off of the data that it already has. And when we look at what movies have done well in the past, what data has been collected, it's derivative, as they say. Yeah, well, that. But there's also a pretty significant bias in terms of what movies you can imagine it would say would do well versus the movies that it would say it would fail. For example, K Pop Demon Hunters is a movie that came out last year in the animation industry. It was focused on in. On K Pop and it was a kind of fantasy project. And a lot of people did not think that it would do well because it focused on something that is a cultural phenomenon among the Asian audience. And a lot of people who had no exposure to K pop previously sort of dismissed it as a niche ethnic phenomenon. But obviously K Pop Demon Hunters is now one of the most streamed movies on Netflix. It did extremely well. And anyone who has experienced the K Pop theme phenomenon knows that it is an extremely passionate and gigantic fan base. And I think a huge focus of the last 15, 20 years has been about elevating films and projects that have not been done before. And I don't see that happening if AI is the one making these decisions. And then kind of in a similar note, when you think about the role of the junior executive or the intern or the assistant who is doing the script coverage, most of the time, that is the first entry level position that someone is working, working in the industry. And unless you have extremely good connections, the chances of breaking into the industry without working one of those jobs are very low. So if we're looking at a future where jobs like that don't exist, or jobs like that are hired at a lower rate than they used to, what is the entry point for people of color into the industry? What is the entry point for disabled people into the industry? What is the entry point for anyone who does not come from the ruling class?

[A]

Yeah, what you're Saying has a lot of echoes in other industries too. Right. People say of AI, well, you know, just give it work that you would give an intern, and if it does all the intern's work, then you don't actually need an intern or an entry level employee. And taking away that, just that entrance into the workplace is problematic for companies anywhere.

[B]

Yeah, I was going to say, I totally agree with Roma about how it is eliminating a ton of lower level jobs. And beyond that, I think we are losing the skill set that those jobs teach, because even though they seem tedious, you learn so much about what you do through those little things, the mistakes you make along the way, and that's how you get to a level where AI can assist you. But I feel like we're losing that mentorship and skill base.

[A]

I hear you.

[C]

I think being able to correct AI comes from a knowledge of what it should look like or how it needs to function within the pipeline. My concern is if we're not teaching people, say, story structure, and they would learn that through script coverage. And now they don't have to, because AI can just do that. Or what's going to happen when the AI gets it wrong and they don't know how to fix it. And also, when it comes to production especially, a lot of notes tend to be vague or maybe coming from people who don't know craft. Right. So a very common note is make this a little bouncier or make this faster or can you sharpen this up a little bit? And if you were to give those prompts to a generative AI model, oh my God, like, there's no telling what you would get out of it. Maybe suddenly all the characters are carrying knives.

[A]

Yeah, right, exactly.

[D]

I know.

[B]

I've spent years learning what those notes mean.

[A]

Yeah, right, right, exactly. No, I hear you that it's easier for people who are AI immigrants than kind of maybe AI natives in their work. Carrie, I want to bring you into the conversation because you've spent years studying the psychology of interacting with technology, and algorithm aversion is one of those things that you look at in your latest work. You suggest that we don't just despise algorithms and artificial intelligence because they're BL black boxes. We despise them because they threaten our identity. And so we're in this room of creators, right, with Roma and Tim and Eric. Why does artificial intelligence and generative AI in particular feel like a personal attack that in a way that, say, Maybe Photoshop didn't 20 or more years ago?

[E]

I mean, I think that you can see there are lots of places where we appreciate having these tools and they're often in the kinds of spaces of our work that we don't necessarily identify with. I think everyone's really thinking about. I'm glad that ChatGPT is polishing my emails and making them sound fantastic. What really scares me is chatgpt replacing the things that I do. Am I training my replacement when I'm using these tools? And that idea about being replaced is really terrifying. Some of these tools will do things that humans are doing now better than we could. Do you think that the same truth will hold in the far future? Let's imagine there's an AI tool like that. Streamberry. Right. And let's imagine now that the economics of that put that tool in the computer of every single person on the planet, or many of the people on the planet. If you could at home on your phone, come up with a movie that you speak to your phone and then it creates the movie, is that a world that we're better off with? Do we have better art in that world?

[C]

I have a bunch of thoughts on this. So first of all, I spoke with someone at Microsoft a while ago and he was talking about the amount of data processing power that would be required to generate a full two hour movie. And that is. And he said this explicitly to me. That's not something he's interested in. Obviously that's short term, that might change, but I think for now that's not really in the realm of possibility. But I want to talk about the idea of now everyone can do it. I think there's this concept of democratization of art that is really popular when people are talking about these generative AI models. You can make a movie on your phone right now. You can post whatever you want to YouTube, to LinkedIn, to wherever you want. And a lot of people do do that. And what we're seeing, and there is definitely a rise in the creator economy, but in terms of actually making a living off of that, in terms of finding a profitable model for everybody being a creator, we're already seeing huge amounts of independent projects because of the lack of green lights happening in the industry right now. Everyone's turning to indie and. And it's not sustainable because there simply are not enough eyeballs to watch everything if everyone is making their own movie.

[A]

I'm curious, Eric, do you see a way?

[D]

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, there's more YouTube creators making 100,000 or more per year on a global basis than there are people working in Hollywood right now. And we have to define what it means to create media that people are consuming. It may be the case that AI can't make a two hour movie at scale and profitability yet. But if you go back in time 30 years ago, people didn't have a concept of what a cable show looked like and there were three networks sitting around saying nobody's ever going to top the MASH finale or what have you. So media changes and consumption changes and the growth is not in Hollywood right now. It's on YouTube. That's already happening. I think I agree with Roma is that might be 3, 4, 5% of creators. That's not 80%, that's not 90%. And AI doesn't necessarily expedite somebody being a good artist. Like it's still a few thousand people that are going to be great directors. You know, it's a rarefied error versus millions of people that are playing around with AI slop. One data point that maybe would be encouraging if you're an artist, but you believe in both the growth of the creator economy and the sustainability of Hollywood, is that SORA too, after growing dramatically in October, November and December of last year, essentially fell off a cliff. Its usage is fairly dormant and it's gone down about 35% per month in terms of usage, which is the wrong part of an S curve for a tech platform to be on. And I think the reason why that happened is that people wanted to experiment. They wanted to say, I'm going to put myself in a Superman suit and fly around above Gotham. And they created all these videos and they got bored and they were like, actually, I don't want to spend my time creating AI slop. I want to watch good stuff. But the nature of what the good stuff is is changing. And in fact, it's already changed.

[A]

This is such a rich topic. We could go a bunch of different places. But I do want to bring in the strike because, you know, OpenAI released ChatGPT 3.5 at the end of 2022. That was the first time that people really saw more clearly and universally how powerful Gen AI could be at automating some complex tasks. And it wasn't long after that tens of thousands of writers and actors went on strike for 148 days, negotiating limits on AI use protections for their future careers. That contract is due to be renegotiated. That was a three year deal. It's going to be done again. But Roma, can you help us understand why AI just triggered such strong resistance there? And what you see, the next battle

[C]

as so, I think there are a number of reasons why this created a strong resistance. First is artists, writers, directors, actors enter this industry because they love writing, directing, acting, and making art. And the idea of a future where they are not doing that and it is a computer doing that for them is not something that appeals to them. Because the reason that they pursued this career is so that they could make a living off of doing the thing that they love. The other part of it is that the labor implications of AI are so far reaching that I think a lot of labor unions took this as a moment to address the undercurrent of what's at stake here. Because when you're thinking about what is AI's main value proposition, it's cutting the length of time needed to produce something and cutting the number of people needed to do it. And those are both things that impact labor as a whole. Because if it only takes them six weeks to do what used to take them six months, maybe they'll make ten times as many of that project. So suddenly what we're looking at is a universe where people who used to be able to depend on six months of work now can only depend on six weeks of work.

[A]

Yeah. That is really interesting how moving the levers changes, like the whole system and kind of how it works. Professor of, you know, psychology and technology. Like, what do you hear there?

[E]

There's sort of three basic kinds of things you need to feel at work to feel competent and safe in your job. One is having autonomy, feeling like you can control your workflow and you have some kind of ability to have ownership of the things that you're doing. Another is competence, feeling like your work is good and you are skilled at what you do. And the last piece is relatedness, and that's feeling, having social connection to the folks you're working with, to having a community. Right. Or other people in your industry. And you know, I think a big part of what's going on here is that if you look at the writers strike, a big part of that was about autonomy. Right. It's that AI doesn't get the credit that a person would if it wrote the first draft of a film. Right. So the writer still has control over the some kind of claim to the script that they edited.

[A]

Sense of ownership and also just dollar ownership there too.

[E]

Yeah. And I think Hollywood's a really interesting case because we people love movies. They love to watch movies. Movies feel like something that's very talked about in the popular culture, but Hollywood is very much sort of a canary in the coal mine for a lot of different kinds of white collar jobs that people are really terrified about losing. And when people think about the value of art, they don't just judge the product that's been made, but they judge the process too. There's a great old paper looking at a thing that we call the effort heuristic. And the idea is that if it took an artist more time to make a painting, that painting's worth more. And so as these processes speed up work and as they lead us to do more and more in shorter periods of time, I think the compensation for that work is going to go down, the product is going to collapse and just in terms of economics, that's going to change the whole way that we compensate people for.

[A]

Yeah, this is not Hollywood. This is any creative industry. Yeah. I want to ask about the future and specifically how each of your roles, you know what you see that version of the future being. Tim, let me come to you now. We heard how you use AI now. You know Gen AI is going to evolve, the tools are going to get better. What do you see your future as?

[B]

Yeah, I hope I have a creative role going forward. If it's up to me, I would always prefer to work with artists. I have worked in animation a lot of years and worked with very talented designers and animators and compositors. And I don't think that can be replaced by a machine. I think one of the beautiful things about filmmaking is it is a cohesive art where many artisans put their work into it and that's what really elevates work above a product. Now my worry is that the industry is swaying towards product over art. And in that world I think it doesn't matter the quality of the art as much and people like me and other artisans role gets diminished.

[A]

It's a perfect place to hand it over to Eric because Eric, you talked about the powerful market forces, right? What's your future in Hollywood? What do you see it becoming?

[D]

Look, the positive side for me is that more tools at lower cost give more artists chance to do things that you couldn't do otherwise. So I see in some ways the opportunity to democratize new films and television, but also just new art forms that didn't exist for previously. And where I get more concerned long term is the virtuous cycle of big data. Having incentives to create trillions of dollars of value by creating technologies that feed into platforms where the content is just good enough. Most of the change in content consumption right now is, is not whether you're watching more or less movies, blockbuster movies. It's what people are watching on Instagram, which are 15 or 20 second clips that could probably, I don't think anyone on this call would consider to be art, but is time spent away from Hollywood and the forces that control social media platforms, video generation and then search in general, and big data in general are so powerful and so global in nature that we may lose film and television as an art form, not because of AI film per se, but because consumption changes, the economics change, and then film and television get left in the gutter.

[C]

Roma, I think from a labor perspective, unions are going to have to figure out guardrails to make sure that this doesn't wipe us out. And I don't think it will wipe us out because the AI is genuinely capable of doing what human artists can do. But I do think it could because the studios don't really care what human artists can do. And there is a huge financial incentive to produce slop and do it very cheaply. So my vision of the future at this point is that unions continue to bargain and negotiate for the best possible terms that we can and use our leverage within the industry to do so. And at the same time, we're also partnering with politicians to lobby for better regulations. Because I do agree with Eric, I think there that the, the ubiquity of AI at this point is a concerted effort and it has a lot to do with the broader data conversation. And I think we should be very careful of that. And then I think ultimately the emotional impact of an AI generated project is just not that strong because it doesn't reveal any new human truth. It doesn't hold up a mirror to society because it can only reflect what's already been said.

[E]

I mean, I think this conversation is fascinating and what it reminds me of is Office Space.

[A]

Office Space, the movie.

[E]

The movie, yeah. So in Office Space the movie, these two consultants come in and they ask everyone, so what would you say you do? Yeah, and I think this kind of technology is really forcing us to take a hard look at, at like what is it about the job that we do or that we want to do? So is making art the practice, the craft, the idea? Like what, what is it that makes movie art? Right? And what diff. What differentiates art from slop? What makes something an Oscar winning movie? What makes something special because it's human. And those are hard questions for an industry to ask. And I think we're going to be forced to ask those questions for many more industries.

[A]

Eric, Roma, Tim, Carrie. This has been really, really fascinating. It's exciting work, but also really kind of compelling and invigorating time in some ways. So thanks so much for lending your perspectives and expertise to this.

[D]

Thanks for having me.

[B]

Yeah, thanks for having us.

[A]

That's my conversation with Roma Murphy, Tim Herold, Eric Barmak, and Kerry Morwej. In our next episode, we turn to a very different field, medicine. Artificial intelligence is already making its way into hospitals and clinics and your doctor's office, from imaging and and diagnostics to the physician patient relationship itself. And that raises the same fundamental question we've been asking over several episodes. Is AI a complement to human expertise or could it eventually replace parts of it?

[D]

We have some 20 million diagnostic errors a year at 800,000 people estimated to have serious disability or death, 800,000Americans per year. And those are fairly conservative estimates from Johns Hopkins. So you have to say, you know, we're expecting higher level from AI than we already have in medicine.

[A]

That's in our next episode. Meanwhile, we'd really appreciate it if you would rate and follow Is Business Broken? Wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks for listening to Is Business Broken? I'm Kurt Nickish.

[C]

Sam.