He’s doing it again! AI Jay Sherman is back and critical as ever. The “The Critic” was cancelled in the mid-90s, but AI keeps his critical spirit alive. Today, Jay explores a potent mix of comedy and drama with “Meet the Parents.” It’s a movie that had Robert De Niro at his most intimidating and Ben Stiller at his most deprecating. Meeting your girlfriend’s parents is very intimidating and relatable, but does a movie about it stink? That’s up to Jay. Enjoy!
Tag Archives: Artificial Intelligence
AI Jay Sherman Reviews “Meet The Parents” (2000) on TikTok
Filed under AI Art, Artificial Intelligence, television
AI Jay Sherman Reviews “Tenet” (2020) on TikTok
He’s doing it again! AI Jay Sherman is back and critical as ever. The “The Critic” was cancelled in the mid-90s, but AI keeps his critical spirit alive. Today, Jay faces a real challenge with “Tenet,” the 2020 sci-fi film from Christopher Nolan that confused, confounded, and astonished audiences. It was a bold effort, that’s for sure. But does it stink? That’s up to Jay. Enjoy!
Filed under AI Art, Artificial Intelligence, television
AI Jay Sherman Reviews “Weekend At Bernie’s” (1989) on TikTok
He’s doing it again! AI Jay Sherman is back and critical as ever. The “The Critic” was cancelled in the mid-90s, but AI keeps his critical spirit alive. Today, Jay reviews “Weekend At Bernie’s,” a cult classic comedy that involves two wannabe yuppies and the corpse of their boss. It’s absurd. It’s hilarious. But does it stink? That’s up to Jay. Enjoy!
Filed under AI Art, Artificial Intelligence, television
AI Jay Sherman Reviews Freddy vs. Jason (2003) on TikTok
He’s doing it again! AI Jay Sherman is back and critical as ever. The “The Critic” was cancelled in the mid-90s, but the power of AI keeps his critical spirit alive. Today, I have Jay review “Freddy vs. Jason,” the ultimate slasher crossover. It’s bloody. It’s messy. It tries to be scary. But does it stink? That’s up to Jay. Enjoy!
Filed under AI Art, Artificial Intelligence, television
AI Jay Sherman Reviews Last Action Hero (1993) on TikTok
He’s doing it again! AI Jay Sherman is back and critical as ever. The “The Critic” was cancelled in the mid-90s, but the power of AI keeps his critical spirit alive. Today, I have Jay review “Last Action Hero,” a goofy action movie satire that went onto become a cult classic. But does it still stink after all these years? Let’s leave that to Jay. Enjoy!
Filed under AI Art, Artificial Intelligence, television
DC Comics Says They’ll NEVER Support Generative AI (And Why I Don’t Believe Them)
If you’re at all invested in comic books, then you probably know the name Jim Lee. Other than names like Jack Kirby, Stan Lee, and Frank Miller, he is one of the most recognized names in the entire industry. He’s not just President of DC Comics. His artwork and style have defined multiple generations of comics for Marvel and DC alike. So, when he says something, his words carry a lot of weight.
But when he stated outright at New York Comic Con 2025 that DC Comics will never support generative AI, I just can’t believe that in its totality. That’s not because I think Mr. Lee is being dishonest. I suspect he means every word he says with 100 percent sincerity. But like so many statements regarding technological trends, it’s likely his statement will not age well.
There’s no question that generative AI is not viewed favorably in many fields. And in an artistically driven industry like comics, that animosity is understandable. There have already been documented controversies about AI art generators creating images with copyrighted material. There are also major legal implications with AI art. At the moment, it cannot be copyrighted like traditional art. And for any industry that relies heavily in intellectual property, such as comics, that’s a big issue.
But with respect to the comic book industry, it’s far more vulnerable to the impact of generative AI than nearly any other industry. Capable AI art generators have only been publicly available for three years, as of this writing. In that time, the capabilities of these tools has improved considerably.
Yes, this progress has come with plenty of controversy. Many of these improvements came largely from AI models using copyrighted work without permission. But it’s too late to undo this progress. And there’s no turning the clock back with technology like this.
Even if the United States and Europe passed strict laws yesterday about what generative AI can do with respect to copyrighted works, it’s impossible to enforce it in the long run. There are also too many countries in the world who don’t care for foreign copyright laws and are happy to provide black market alternatives.
For Jim Lee and DC Comics, it’s easy to make this promise now. Current AI art generators are still not capable of matching the quality of skilled artists. And even with continuing progress, these programs won’t match and exceed that quality in the near future.
But that won’t always be the case. At some point in the future, generative AI will be capable of producing artwork at a quality that’s equal to or greater than someone like Jim Lee. On top of that, it will be able to produce that artwork at greater volumes and at a fraction of the cost. And that’s the primary reason why I think Mr. Lee’s commitment will eventually falter.
As accomplished and sincere as he is, Jim Lee won’t be President of DC Comics forever. DC Comics is also just a subsidiary of a larger media corporation, namely Warner Bros. If at some point Warner decides that Mr. Lee’s stance on generative AI is detrimental to their profits, there’s nothing preventing them from changing that policy.
And I believe that will happen eventually. It may not happen for many years. It may not happen until Jim Lee is retired and out of the comic book industry completely. But it will happen as soon as generative AI is good enough and cheap enough to provide DC Comics with content. There’s even a chance that DC or some other publisher will adopt this practice beforehand and without informing consumers.
That would be grossly dishonest and deeply scandalous. But if AI is at a point where even the most discerning comic book fans can’t tell the difference between AI and human artists, then Warner and other companies like Disney have every incentive to embrace it. Integrity makes for great headlines and good PR, but it rarely wins out over greater profits and lower costs.
As a lifelong comic book fan, I have mixed feelings about this. I don’t doubt that generative AI will continue to be controversial. The current sentiment among most fans is that generative AI is slop. Any company that uses it will likely be scolded, shamed, and boycotted. But like those who resisted getting a smartphone years ago, the technology will improve regardless of how we feel about it.
Nobody knows where the comics industry will be in five years. Nobody knows what the state of AI will be in that same timeframe. For now, Jim Lee’s stance on generative AI is understandable and laudable. But it won’t last. It can’t last if AI continues to improve. And when it happens, the world of comics will never be the same.
Filed under AI Art, DC Comics, superhero comics
AI Jay Sherman Reviews Tron (1982) on TikTok
He’s doing it again! AI Jay Sherman is back and critical as ever. The “The Critic” was cancelled in the mid-90s, but the power of AI keeps his critical spirit alive. So today, I have Jay review the 1982 sci-fi classic, “Tron.” With yet another sequel set to come out next week, it feels appropriate to go back to the source and have Jay tear it to shreds, as only he can. Enjoy!
Filed under AI Art, Artificial Intelligence, television
The First (But Not Last) AI Actress Is A Thing
Have you heard of Tilly Norwood? She’s a beautiful young actress who is just starting to make her presence felt in Hollywood. She hasn’t been in much, but she’s already negotiating with talent agents to get bigger roles.
There’s just one major issue. Tilly Norwood isn’t a real person. She’s an entirely AI-generated persona.
Naturally, that doesn’t sit well with real life actors and unions. There is already a concerted effort to prevent Tilly Norwood from being cast in anything beyond your typical AI slop content. I completely understand this sentiment. I don’t blame anyone who works in Hollywood for being concerned about this. However, having covered the rise in AI for years, I’m comfortable making this prediction.
Tilly Norwood will eventually be cast in major movies and TV shows.
Other AI actors like her will be cast, as well.
Traditional actors and actresses will hate it. A sizable chunk of the audience will hate it as well. But this is going to happen. It was always going to happen the moment generative AI reached a certain level of refinement. A big reason for that involves money, as tends to be the case in Hollywood and most other industries. But there’s another reason that’s worth highlighting.
Dollar for dollar, movies and TV shows are getting more expensive to produce. This isn’t just due to inflation, unions, and the “personalities” that tend to comes with Hollywood. The logistics involved with making media has become bloated and inefficient. We’re no longer in an era in which media can only go through certain channels, be it TV and movie theaters. Thanks to streaming media, as well as online content like YouTube and Tiktok, the competition for eyeballs has never been greater.
Unless you’re a big budget blockbuster with a massive distribution network, such as Disney or Warner Bros., it’s harder to make content that turns a profit. The scale, resources, and personnel required to produce a movie or show is such that it’s limiting. Add to that the general enshitification of streaming media and the current model for producing content just isn’t sustainable.
Generative AI, as much as it is derided, offers a significant cost advantage. On top of that, an AI actor or actress is less likely to get accused of harassment, arrested for public intoxication, or go on some anti-sematic rant during a routine traffic stop. And for certain Hollywood agents, you can’t put a price on that kind of assurance.
But the question remains. Will audiences accept AI actors? Will the content they produce actually be worth watching?
A lot of people will probably refuse to watch anything with Tilly Norwood or anything like her out of principle. But what happens when AI gets to a point where it’s hard to tell if a person is AI generated? There are already AI tools like SORA and Veo3 that make extremely realistic videos of people who look and sound real. This is one element of AI that is not in the distant future. It’s here and it’s evolving fast.
It’s not yet clear what kind of career Tilly Norwood will have. She may never show up in anything mainstream. But like it or not, she marks the first step in a new trend with AI. We don’t know where it will lead. Hollywood is already undergoing significant change. Technology like this is only going to accelerate that change in ways we can’t imagine.
Filed under Artificial Intelligence, movies, technology, television
AI Jay Sherman Reviews Dragonball Evolution (2009) on TikTok
He’s doing it again! AI Jay Sherman is back and critical as ever. The “The Critic” was cancelled in the mid-90s, but the power of AI keeps his critical spirit alive. So today, I have Jay review “Dragonball Evolution.” Honestly, I feel bad for giving him this one. This is one of the worst movies of the past 30 years. But if ever there was a movie that deserves to be torn to shreds, it’s this one. Enjoy!
Filed under AI Art, Artificial Intelligence, television
A Message Regarding Teachers, Students, And ChatGPT
When I was a student in high school, the internet was just starting to mature. More and more people were able to access it. Teachers and students alike began using it. Initially, it was a novelty. But once certain sites and programs emerged, namely Wikipedia, it garnered serious concern among teachers and administrators.
I still remember multiple teachers advising us to not use Wikipedia for any assignment. A few even warned us that, if they found out we just copied text from it, then that would result in an immediate failing grade.
As for the administrators, their concern was that it would completely undermine the traditional process for doing research. That usually involved going to a library, searching for the relevant books, sifting through those books, and taking detailed notes on the information within.
Yes, that process was cumbersome and archaic.
Yes, I regularly utilized that process.
Yes, it sucked as much as you think.
Eventually, the attitude shifted. When I was in my second year of college, more and more of my professors changed their attitude towards using sites like Wikipedia. They saw the value in using it to teach a subject. They still advised students to avoid using it as a sole reference point. But they didn’t actively deter or punish students from using it.
I bring this up because it seems a new generation of students and teachers is dealing with a similar situation with AI. And even though I’m not in school anymore, I can already surmise that this will be far more impactful than Wikipedia ever was. AI has already changed the way students and schools approach homework. It’s also changing the way teachers are approaching teaching, in general.
Now, it’s still too early to know whether AI will be a net benefit or a net negative with respect to educating students. But the overall sentiment towards AI, at least among teachers, is mostly negative. The reasons for this attitude vary, but it’s not that different from the reasons my old teachers gave for discouraging Wikipedia.
It’s doing too much of the work for the students. It’s essentially doing the thinking for them in terms summarizing the material, producing essays, or answering questions. The concern is that it’ll hinder students’ ability to develop critical thinking skills. Because if they can just let the AI do the work for them, why bother? The AI can do what they otherwise would’ve done in seconds.
I certainly don’t doubt that this concern is sincere. I have family members and close relatives who work as teachers. This is going to affect them, regardless of their attitudes towards AI. I imagine numerous teachers, schools, and administrators are going to resist utilizing this technology at every turn. Others will embrace it to the utmost because it could potentially make their jobs easier. Given the inherent stresses of teaching children at any age, could you honestly blame them?
To both those groups of educators, as well as the students currently coming of age, I have a message that I’d like to impart. And should I ever have kids of my own, I suspect this message will affect them too.
Embracing AI will ultimately be more productive than resisting it.
It’s not a warning or advice. It’s just a simple statement. I’m not just saying it because I generally support the development of AI. I’m simply speaking from experience.
That experience is heavily influenced by the fact that I was generally miserable in school. I did not care much for middle school or high school. And I certainly wouldn’t say that I learned as much as I’d hoped during that experience. If anything, the way school went about teaching me just didn’t work. The only thing I ever “learned” in school was how to pass tests. That’s not the same as learning something.
In college, things were different. Yes, there were still tests and exams to study for. However, there was more freedom and flexibility to learn about the things that interested me. That helped make college an overall better experience while helping me develop skills that served me well in my adult life.
But in any case, I can also say without reservation that if ChatGPT had been available to me, I definitely would’ve used it. It would’ve been very helpful in terms of summarizing notes, chapters in a textbook, or breaking down certain concepts I didn’t understand. And yes, I probably would’ve used it to help me with my homework, polish my essays, or study for exams. Would that have made me less knowledgeable? Would I have ended up learning less, as a result?
I honestly don’t think so. Because if I’m interested in something, I’ll seek out more information that’s beyond the assignment. I’ll look for things outside the textbook or the syllabus. And if that ends up helping me with an exam or a lecture, then that’s just a bonus.
I suspect there are plenty of other kids like that. Kids, in general, are pretty curious. If they’re interested in something, they’ll pursue it. Sometimes, teachers don’t have the time, energy, or willingness to teach them beyond what the school allows or assigns. Other times, parents aren’t able to teach them because they either don’t know enough about it or just don’t have the time.
AI can fill that gap that will only widen as more schools struggle to find capable teachers. Given how bureaucratic the education system is, especially in America, there aren’t many feasible options outside of AI. Resisting it won’t work in the long run. Resisting technology of any kind rarely works.
It may even get to a point where students primarily learn major skills through AI. It’s already happening on a small scale in some areas. That trend is likely to accelerate as AI continues to improve. The incentives are in place. The need is certainly there. There may be those who don’t like the idea of kids being taught primarily by a non-human AI. They may have concerns that are entirely warranted.
But in the end, AI is here to stay. It’s capable of filling an important need at a time when knowledge, education, and critical thinking skills have never been more important. If the current education system cannot meet that demand, then we’ll need tools like AI. Without it, the students will ultimately pay the price.
Filed under Artificial Intelligence



