The class of 2026 made their feelings about AI clear before they even picked up their diplomas. Graduates at the University of Central Florida and the University of Arizona booed speakers mid-sentence for invoking AI, a reaction to being told by the people building the technology and disrupting the job market they were about to enter, to trust the process.
Gen Z leads global adoption of generative AI tools. And yet they trust AI less than any other age cohort in the US — 14 points below Millennials — and are entering a labor market where only 43% of 18-to-29-year-olds say it’s a good time to find a job, down from 75% in 2022 (Gallup). Fluent in the tools, skeptical of who controls them, and clear-eyed about what’s at stake when over-used overused. Two industries in particular — Hollywood and the creator economy — are exposing these fault lines.
The Creators Who Bypassed the System
This spring, three filmmakers reshaped Hollywood’s understanding of where cultural power comes from. Curry Barker, 26, directed Obsession on a budget of $750,000 — built from years of YouTube sketch comedy and a found-footage horror film made for $800 and released for free. Obsession has since crossed $300 million worldwide, becoming Focus Features’ highest-grossing release of all time.
Markiplier self-funded and self-distributed Iron Lung to over 3,000 screens with virtually no traditional marketing spend, grossing over $40 million in its first month against a budget of around $4 million. Kane Parsons, 20, adapted an internet urban legend into Backrooms for A24, making him the youngest filmmaker ever to open a movie at number one in North America, with the film grossing over $270 million worldwide.
All three came up through the internet and bypassed the traditional studio pipeline. All three built loyal audiences before they built careers through iterative, low-budget, community-facing work. When asked what Hollywood should take away from Obsession, Barker’s answer was direct: “They let me do my own thing. Let a filmmaker take the reins and have creative freedom and not try to stick your claws into it.”
The lesson the traditional industry keeps trying to extract from these films — find the next one, replicate the formula, scale the model — is the wrong one. What made each of these projects work is a specificity of voice, depth of community trust, and creative risk taken without institutional safety nets — qualities that automated pipelines eliminate.
The Platform That Wants to Own It All
TikTok recently introduced AI Cast, a feature that lets creators generate a digital avatar of themselves to star in videos — no filming, no editing required. Scan your face, train your voice on a few prompts, write (or accept a brand’s) creative brief, and the content produces itself. AI Cast is the creator-facing piece of ByteDance’s broader stack: Symphony handles brand-side video automation, Dreamina — the Seedance 2.0 model underneath it all — generates content from text prompts, and Creator AI Search matches campaign briefs to creator profiles based on historical performance data.
When a creator opts in, their face and voice become reference material for brand campaigns — a licensed asset for ByteDance to broker across commercial deals. The platform positions itself as the intermediary: matching brand briefs to creator profiles, automating the content, and owning the infrastructure that connects them. The productivity case is real. And so is the question many Gen Zers are now asking each other (on TikTok, of course): — iIf the creative output no longer requires the creator’s presence, judgment, or craft, what exactly is being valued, and what is being depreciated?
Going forward, this is the same careful balance marketers must also strike between efficiency, speed, and the human judgment Gen Z responds to. Just like creators, marketers too are being sold the efficiency of emerging tools: automate the creator and skip the relationship. But data increasingly suggests audiences respond to exactly the pieces that can’t be templated — the friction, the risk, the sense that a real person made a call. Brands have a rare opportunity to lead here — to develop a point of view on when and where to use these tools, without trading away the creative credibility and consumer trust that make creator content work in the first place.
Curry Barker didn’t get to Blumhouse by being a face on a pipeline. He got there by having a point of view.
The Youngest Voice in the Room Is the Loudest
Kane Parsons taught himself VFX on Blender on what he described as “a fairly crummy laptop,” and turned free tools and an internet legend into one of the year’s most significant debuts. He is precisely the kind of creator generative AI’s proponents point to when they talk about democratizing creativity.
“If I could snap my fingers and make generative AI disappear forever, I probably would,” he told Variety. “Creatively, I get no enjoyment from using those tools. It defeats the purpose entirely for me. We already live in a world where you walk outside and there are billboards and signs that are obvious AI slop. That’s become part of our visual reality. To me, generative AI feels less like innovation than a symptom of a broader cultural and economic rot. I’m interested in using that iconography in art — not using AI to make the art itself, but examining what it represents.”
Meanwhile, much of the establishment seems to be moving in the opposite direction. A24 just announced a massive investment from Google’s DeepMind (which promptly sparked fan backlash and led to A24 releasing a statement). Martin Scorsese recently joined AI firm Black Forest Labs as an adviser, arguing, “Cinema is a young medium, only around 125 years old, so we have to be open to how it can evolve” Netflix acquired Ben Affleck’s AI filmmaking company, InterPositive, for around $600 million, with Affleck framing its tools to handle as handling “all the logistical, difficult stuff that often gets in the way” of the creative process (NPR). The institutions, the veterans, and the capital are aligned. A separate April Gallup survey shows Gen Z’s excitement about AI dropped 14% in a single year, down to 22%.
The generation raised fluent in digital tools is pushing back hardest, understanding from the inside what gets displaced when a pipeline replaces a person. Those commencement boos came from a young generation that has watched AI reframe entry-level work as inefficiency, seen generative content flood the visual landscape, and built their own creative identities through friction and craft. They’re now being told by the architects of that system that adaptation is the only rational response.
Whether they adapt, resist, or find a way to hold both is a question without an answer yet. But hearing some of the most talented new creators of a generation raised on social media leading the box office, and watching graduating students openly challenge the old guard, makes it a question worth asking — and answering.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
