With this quote, partners and founders Jeff Clinkenbeard and Kyaw Hla solidified the decision to allow AI usage in the competition, the only caveat being that awards for Leading Performance and Supporting Performance could only be granted to “human performers.”
Clinkenbeard said that the decision to address AI usage in the competition came after he found out what the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences felt about generative AI.
“I found this quote and I thought, ‘you know what? That’s relevant.’ Let's face it, when it comes to film, the Oscars is the North Star. Not everything they're going to do is going to apply to us, and not everything we're going to do is going to align with them. But they are certainly a good first source.”
Not included in the quote posted to SATO48’s Instagram and Facebook accounts was the statement following that quote: “The Academy and each branch will judge the achievement, taking into account the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship when choosing which movie to award.” This full quote was released by the Academy in April 2025.
“We just want to put that out there, the leading thinker and participant for over 97 years or whatever it's been now in filmmaking, doesn't feel like generative AI is a tool that will hurt or harm the industry. That's their position, or at least the nomination of films,” said Clinkenbeard.
In the SATO48 competition, which wrapped on April 26, filmmakers are given an “inspiration packet” at the event kickoff, hosted at the Gillioz Theatre. The packet contains phrases, concepts, etc., that must be included in the competitor’s final product. The competitors are then tasked with writing, filming and editing a five-minute film that fulfills these requirements in the span of 48 hours.
Since the conception of the competition, Hla said that the goal has been to create equal opportunities for filmmakers.
“We're here to create an opportunity and not limitation for everyone,” he said. “With the 48-hour constraint, it's a great equalizer. Everybody gets an equal opportunity to create something. The fairness is there.”
In regard to the decision to allow generative AI content, Clinkenbeard said that they have “never told the filmmakers how they have to make their film.”
“It is the mission that we started with, and it's the mission worth clinging to,” he said.
“We have filmmakers on iPhones, and we have filmmakers with RED cameras, and we have filmmakers with just, you know, who knows what they're shooting on,” said Clinkenbeard. “It's not important to us. We don't care how you got there. Just be great.”
When asked if generative AI could potentially make the filmmaking process “easier” for filmmakers or would take “less effort” in comparison to traditional filmmaking methods, Clinkenbeard said that “if you're going for quality, [no].”
This previously mentioned post, as well as a few others made by the SATO48 Instagram and Facebook accounts, quickly gained traction in the Springfield film community.
Autumn Girgin, who described herself as being “extensively involved” in the film community, took to Instagram to share her story and opinion.
Girgin explained that, while participating in the SATO48 competition in the past, she noticed what she described as “inequalities” in the process used to nominate films.
She said her friends made a film that was "strictly stop motion. [But then] we noticed there’s an entirely AI-generated film in the same category that is up for the same award,” she said. “And that’s when we were like, ‘hey, that’s not cool.’ ”
That AI-generated film was called “False Dawn,” created by filmmaker and digital marketing director Jordan Corbett, who has participated in SATO48 for over a decade.
“It was the hardest film I've made. People assume AI makes things easier, and it really doesn't. You still have to inject your own human soul into it. You still have to tell a story,” said Corbett. “I've done traditional puppet-style animation and made films with actual puppets, and honestly, working with AI isn't that different. It's another medium with its own constraints, and you're still the one making the creative decisions at every step.”
Corbett compared banning generative AI in filmmaking to banning After Effects or saying that animation must be hand-drawn.
“Drawing a line around it and banning it outright feels arbitrary to me, and I'm glad SATO is standing behind creative freedom rather than caving to the backlash.”
While Corbett believes that there are issues to work through with generative AI, such as copyright issues and environmental impact, he said it is a net positive, “especially for independent creators.”
“It levels the playing field. You shouldn't need a studio budget to make something high-quality, and AI is one of the tools making that possible,” Corbett added. “The anger around AI is being aimed in the wrong direction. It shouldn't be at indie filmmakers. If anything, this is the technology that could finally loosen the grip studios have on the industry.”
Conversely, Girgin believes that usage of AI in art is uninspired and “lazy.”
“There was a reason why Hollywood was on strike for so long, is because actors do not want to be acting against AI. Actors do not want their likeness to be sold to AI companies. Directors don't want to be directing AI,” said Girgin.
Girgin added that, in her opinion, generative AI usage is essentially a form of plagiarism, as AI models use human-made media found on the internet to create images and videos. “Somebody else took those pictures. Now that that generative prompt is claiming that it's its own thing,” she said.
In addition to Girgin’s criticisms of the event rules and the usage of AI in creative fields as a whole, married couple Sarah and Tyler Hines also had their own takeaways from the situation. Both Sarah and Tyler have competed in SATO48 for over a decade, often making their own 2D animations.
Tyler, a videographer for the City of Springfield, also added that his father previously sponsored the event for two years, creating the “Hines Off the Wall Award,” which awarded a film with a “zany” concept. “It is the antithesis of what our family found so fascinating and fun about SATO.”
“Two years ago, whenever AI really started to get good at video, Jeff and I were discussing it and how I was against it because I'm a cartoonist as well, and generative AI really went gung ho for 2D-style animation,” explained Tyler. “Jeff said it was a ‘tool that filmmakers can use, like a thesaurus for a writer,’ which I don't think is a very good comparison. One is existing words that help a writer figure out what to say, and the other generates things that other people have created in the past.”
Sarah explained that, to her, she found the new rules regarding AI usage to be more of a “competition-ruiner,” rather than unleveling the playing field for competitors.
“You had the computer make it for you. Why didn't you make it if you wanted to make it? Why are you entering a competition if it's not to stretch the limits of what you can do?” said Sarah. “Competition shouldn’t just be about winning. Even if you go to a competition and you lose, you've still gained something in improving yourself and being around passionate people who are also improving themselves.”
But Jeff Clinkenbeard and Kyaw Hla, partners and founders of SATO48, have different thoughts on the situation at hand.
“Speaking from the numbers, opposition to AI in SATO48 has been a minority. We haven’t heard from supporters of the tool because they don't feel one way or the other. They're just not getting on social media and saying, ‘It has to be AI,’” said Clinkenbeard. “So that's the quieter but majority voice.”
Clinkenbeard also compared the discourse over AI usage in filmmaking to the discourse during the switch from shooting on film to digital.
“If filmmakers want to stay in the creative field, they’ll have to adapt to the implementation of generative AI,” he said.
Corbett echoed this sentiment, stating that “AI technology isn’t going away.”
“You can put your head in the sand and be mad about it or you can engage with it and shape it,” he said.
“I am sensitive to the voices who are afraid and who think people are going to lose their job and that it's not creative and that it's a ‘slop bucket.’ But that is all conjecture. That's all future, but it's not necessarily going to be that way. The way to see what really works or not is to actually do it,” said Clinkenbeard.
“I don't follow AI as an industry expert, but I have faith in science and faith in capitalism that when something becomes so politically and community-laden with regulation, then the industry will change around it.”
Despite the disagreements between Clinkenbeard and Hla and those who opposed AI usage in the competition, Clinkenbeard said it’s “good” that the situation is creating “excitement and a conversation.”
Clinkenbeard and Hla said that, this year, the team plans to run statistics compared to the year prior and that they will collect “evidence around some of the conjectures.” However, Clinkenbeard said the two have “put their stake in the ground” regarding telling filmmakers what tools to use by this time next year.
Many of the filmmakers who were disappointed with SATO48’s decision to allow AI-generated content participated in an alternate competition during the same weekend called POW417.
POW417 is a 48-hour filmmaking competition like SATO48 but, unlike SATO, bans AI-generated content and does not give out rankings or trophies. Content created during POW417 will be screened locally, with a time and date to be determined.
Now that SATO48 has made its official statement regarding the usage of generative AI, Girgin said she is “incredibly disappointed,” especially in regard to the way that the SATO48 social media pages have responded to community backlash.
“I think that the response is incredibly unprofessional. It’s just very unprofessional. They’re supposed to be our leaders, role models,” said Girgin. “It's so frustrating that our tiny community is being so loud about how we do not want it, and they are basically challenging us to sign up for their competition to prove something to them.”
“I've definitely been keeping abreast of what's been happening. Frankly, I think it's mean and shortsighted of them, and I'll admit there's a little bit of a feeling of personal betrayal there. We've known Jeff and Kyaw for years, we've been to their home, we've eaten their food, we've attended their parties, and now the moment we express an opinion that's different from what they want, they essentially start insulting us and calling us lazy because we don't want to own up to the challenge of AI,” said Sarah. “Honestly, the way they've been treating people, loyal competitors, on social media is the kicker for me. It’s unacceptable and has probably made me never want to do SATO again.”
Girgin said that despite her issues with the decision made by the SATO48 team, as well as their responses to her comments, she remains hopeful about the competition as a whole. “I hope that maybe they will buckle down and say, ‘OK, we've hurt you.’ But the way that they're responding right now makes me think that they are going to stay this way for at least a little while.”
“I'm hopeful that seeing the backlash against it will make them come to their senses a little bit. At the very least, I would like to see them make a separate category that everything with AI should go into,” said Sarah. “That wouldn't be enough to make me come back, but I think that would help at least a little bit. We’re really sad that this is the stuff they’ve been saying about us, and I’m sure we’re not alone in this.”