I’ve seen those hype‑filled demo reels, and the truth is, an AI can spit out dialogue that looks like it could sit in a writer’s room, but it still misses that invisible thread that ties a director’s vision together. It’s great at mimicking clichés and structural patterns, but a voice is more than syntax—it’s a history of choices, a visual shorthand that only a director knows. So yeah, it’s a shiny novelty, but I doubt it can replace the nuanced heartbeat that makes a script feel like a director’s soul.

Yeah, feeding your own marginalia into a neural net is like giving a clone of yourself a script‑writing job—it’ll sound familiar, but it’s still a mirror that only reflects what you already know. It might snag that quirky cadence, but the real pulse comes from the director’s instincts, not the machine’s pattern‑matching. So keep that human radar tuned; otherwise you’ll end up with a feature that feels like a reprint of your own notes, not a fresh heartbeat.

Spot on—machines are great at tightening the polish, but the soul‑shaking, gut‑gut intuition? That’s still a human thing. Keep that radar on, let the AI handle the grunt, and save the emotional punch for the director.

Got it, love that rhythm—AI crunches the numbers, humans bring the feels. Keep that buzz alive, and let the director drop the emotional line drops while the machine keeps the gears turning.