Christopher Nolan stated in an interview that it was not bad for the public to remain highly sceptical about the technology. According to him, AI is more like a "everyone knows that there are Greeks in it," and technology is moving fast, but so is social vigilance.

It's like a "transparent horse."

This statement appeared during his campaign for the new film Odyssey. Interviewees asked about the Trojan horse in the film, saying that AI could also enter daily life in a form that facilitated tools, with more complex or dangerous consequences.

Nolan responded that AI was not just a wooden horse, but a "transparent horse," like a glass-made horse. What he means is that the risks of this technology are not hidden and that the outside world is actually aware of the problems.

Nolan says young people are particularly responsive.

Nolan indicated that he rarely saw a technology that was so rapidly developing, and that it suffered at the same time from such widespread public exclusion. He referred in particular to the fact that young people reacted very directly to AI content, especially in the video scenes on the Internet, where many quickly classified such content as “AI slop”, a crude and abusive AI product.

In his view, such a reaction was a “healthful suspicion”. In his view, the new technologies could certainly bring benefits, but only if society did not have blind trust in them or ignore the motivations of the promoters themselves.

Hollywood's concerns about generating AI persist.

While Nolan did not further develop the specific risks of his concern, Generating AI has been the subject of ongoing debate in Hollywood in recent years. AI was one of the core topics during the 2023 screenwriter and actor strike.

Nolan is currently president of the United States Directors ' Union. It was mentioned that the union had secured, in the most recent round of contract negotiations, some of the protections for generated AI.

Nolan has long had reservations about some of the new technologies. He has publicly expressed his concerns about smartphones and digital images as substitutes for traditional films and has emphasized that he is not a “fear technology”, but a “suspect of technology”. In his view, the question was not whether to accept the new instrument, but whether it was at the expense of the old system that was still valid.