I want to say that I am dismayed and disappointed by the news from the D23 “Accelerating World-Building & Theme Park Design with New Creative Tools” panel indicating that Disney is going all-in on using generative AI for its creative projects.

I want to say that, but the truth is that “heartbroken” is a more accurate word.

To clarify from the start: I know there are things under the broad umbrella of "AI" that could be beneficial to various fields, including Disney Parks, things which are oriented to analytics and operational efficiency. But generative AI is not that, so let’s not play the game of false equivalence. This is very specifically about their partnership with Adobe to integrate generative AI into the creative process.

There are so, so many reasons for Disney not to do this. I’m going to focus on the creative ones, because that’s my field, but things like generative AI’s disastrous environmental impacts should not be overlooked. They absolutely undermine Disney’s stated commitment to conservation. And I’m sure there are people who can explain better than I can how genAI is a financial house of cards, as even its CEOs admit; anyone who wants an in-depth look at how the hype is never going to do what it claims should read The AI Con by Emily M. Bender and Alex Hanna. If nothing but money motivates, then Disney should quite simply be smarter than to invest in this way.

But I am a creative worker, so that’s where my head is mostly at.

I’m also a huge fan of Disney’s creative works. I’m pretty sure literally anyone who knows me knows how much I love Disney, particularly the parks. I have daydreamed about what it would be like to be an Imagineer. When I visit the parks, I’m analyzing them as much as I’m enjoying them, because I love seeing how the Imagineers use clever visual tricks and psychological engineering to make magic for the guests. This is work I do, too, though on a smaller scale and with a much smaller budget — I come to the parks to research and to get better at my storycrafting.

I spent my 40th birthday there last year, having the best time in the whole world, deliriously happy for five straight days, taking in not just the parks but Enchanting Extras that had been on my bucket list for years. I write about my trips; I share my joy in them on Instagram.

And I confess: I spend a lot of my discretionary income doing these things. I was so excited last year to become a WDW Annual Passholder, and it breaks my heart to think of letting that expire because of this. But I will.

I do not think I will be the only one making that choice, though, not by a long shot. Not once what they’re doing is more widely known — and once people start to feel the detrimental effects that genAI will have on Disney’s creative projects. I’m far from the only one with this specific no tolerance policy.

I darkly suspect that Disney knows that, too. “New Creative Tools” is rhetorical language you use because you know people won’t respond well if you call a thing what it really is.

I predict they’ll also start bleeding talent, because most creative workers hate genAI with a violent passion (witness the literal hundreds of thousands of us who filed claims in the Anthropic lawsuit) — and, as Lin-Manuel Miranda reminded us in his speech upon being named a Disney Legend, we value our human collaborators, mentors, and inspirations. Most of us do not want our names anywhere near a project with even a whiff of genAI.

Will Disney still find workers? Sure. But they’re going to be scabs and dregs, not the best of the best. And sure, the talent drain might take a while, because many of the current workers’ lives are deeply entangled with the company, financially as well as emotionally. But if anything can drive the most devoted people to a breaking point, I suspect it will prove to be the incorporation of generative AI into art.

I know what the typical corporate responses to objections like mine are -- that it's going to help the creative workers, not replace them. That it’s a tool for them. That it assists. That it will help them create better.

But the thing is, all of that is simply not true. AI programs cannot, as Kyle Laughlin claimed in that panel, be Jarvis. I know many people — Mr. Laughlin and Mr. D’Amaro apparently included — want to believe that they can, so I refer again to The AI Con to clear up that false hype. They cannot do the things that human collaborators do, and they will instead make those who use them worse at their jobs. Use of generative AI is self-injurious to a creative worker.

Study after study has shown that use of generative AI programs is detrimental to both critical and creative thinking skills. (And those studies are from places like MIT, Microsoft, Carnegie Mellon, and Wharton — exactly the sort of places pre-disposed to hype genAI, but even they cannot ignore its dangers). Those skills atrophy when genAI is introduced. Neural activity quantifiably decreases. GenAI doesn't help the process; it shortcuts it in ways that are ultimately damaging. It dulls cognitive effort, and perhaps even worse, it negatively impacts users’ confidence in what they are capable of.

There’s also something very toxic about the focus on speed, as if that alone were a virtue. Set aside the fact that genAI typically does not make work faster, because folk have to spend even more time cleaning up after it. Doing things faster is not the same as doing them better.

Creative work needs time and care. It needs moodling and marinating. Racing to the fastest solution is not going to get you the right solution. Not everything in this world ought to happen at a breakneck pace (no matter what shareholders might have to say about it).

Generative AI cannot be creative. It cannot create. It does not know what that means. It cannot, in fact, know anything. It doesn't have a brain. It cannot reason. It cannot be inspired.

It cannot feel. It cannot remember the thrill of energy the first time it accidentally brushed hands with someone it fancied. It cannot grieve. Its stomach muscles cannot hurt after a friend made it laugh so hard it cried. And so it cannot understand the emotions of our lives — or help us bring emotion to our work.

It has no physical reality. It cannot watch a sunset or a snowfall or a butterfly opening its wings and marvel at nature. It cannot dig its toes into the sand or get a splinter or burrow itself into cozy blankets, and so it cannot understand the tactility of our lives — or bring our vibrant, beautiful senses to our work.

It cannot imagine; it cannot conjecture; it cannot invent. It can't. tell. a. story. because it does not understand what story is or what it is for.

For all of those reasons, there is no place for generative AI in a healthy creative process, and Disney turning to it is an insult both to creative workers and to Disney fans. Even if they’re “just” using it to “ideate” a thousand versions of a chair. I don’t want a soullessly created chair. I want a chair designed by a human. Who could, y’know, sit in it.

We deserve better. For over a century, Disney has told stories and created experiences that grab the heart and soul because those stories and experiences were built by people with hearts and souls. What generative AI produces will be soulless, and audiences and parkgoers will feel that, even if they can’t necessarily identify how and why. They’ll just know it leaves them feeling empty rather than inspired.

It’s no coincidence that the more people know about generative AI, the less they like it. Public opinion is turning against it. Only 9% of Americans think it does more good than harm, which is part of what makes it such a bizarre choice for Disney to lean hard in this direction now.

I genuinely hope Disney will reconsider. It’s not too late to turn things around. This is not inevitable. It does not have to be the shape of our future.

Disney could, instead, lead the charge in favor of human creativity. It would be such a powerful choice — not to be yet another company shoving genAI where it isn’t wanted, but to stand up and say we don’t need this. We love and trust the humans who work for us and who have made so much magic for decades. We’re not succumbing to the lure of destructive fad technology. We’re championing and celebrating the inimitable wonder of the human mind.

To stand up and say: Human creativity matters.

I want to thank Mike Celestino for writing this excellent essay, because that’s what alerted me to this in the first place.

I’m going to be making this message as loud as I can in as many ways as I can, including direct emails and actual mail. I will be civil. I will be cordial. I will be passionate.

If you’d like to join me, I’m including below the email and mailing addresses that might be relevant. No, I don’t know if all or any of these will reach the right people. But it’s worth a try. And volume gets attention.

I particularly encourage my fellow creative workers to speak up, because we have to hold the line.

Let’s make some noise.

The Walt Disney Company
500 S. Buena Vista St.
Burbank CA 91521-1151

(I would suggest addressing letters to Josh D’Amaro and relevant people on the Disney Experiences Leadership team.)

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

disneyland.disney.go.com/help/email/