> tight acting and practical effects over CG is also a good indication of how people may feel about this ai stuff.

This is kind of what I was trying to get at with the word spectacle. When Tom Cruise base jumps off a motorcycle, he is literally putting his life on the line, solely for your entertainment. This is impressive, just as Buster Keatons' many death defying stunts were. When we go to the movies we want to be impressed. Nowadays, everything is CGI, nothing is practical and almost all of the danger, skill or challenge is removed. It's not impressive. It's not even that impressive from a technical artistic standpoint because the artists are relying on all manner of computer tools and now AI to do their job, whereas before the effects would depend solely on the skill of the artists and craftsman working on the production.

Watching a modern day movie is like turning up to an arena expecting to watch a boxing match between world class fighters and then discovering that you'll be watching two amateurs in sumo suits hitting each other with inflatable tubes. It might be entertaining for five minutes but it soon wears thin. There's no risk involved, there's not much skill, there's no consequences, there's no overcoming adversity. There's not much of anything.

AI has no skin in the game of life. The math and science behind these tools might be impressive but that doesn't stir emotions in us, the same way we don't really look at our lightbulbs or cars or computers and feel impressed. Technology is just tools and tools are mundane. We want to see real people using those tools and conquering difficult situations.

You've just explained the attention economy. I agree with you, and I think the people expecting to waltz into fields they previously had no experience with and use AI to produce "compelling" work are in for a rude surprise when they realize how competitive it already is and how much the people involved in these industries hate them.