A24 explained its research partnership with Google‘s DeepMind unit as a bid to have “a seat at the table“ in Hollywood’s reckoning with AI after fans pelted the independent studio with criticism for embracing the technology.

“This is a research partnership,” A24 communications rep Sophia Shin said about the deal in a statement first reported by Wired. “We’re working side-by-side with DeepMind’s researchers to learn, iterate, and build, having an active hand in shaping new tools and workflows.”

“Our relationship with our audience is something we don’t take for granted,” the statement continued. “This partnership exists because we want to dictate what tools get built for artists, and so they have a voice in shaping them rather than having tools handed to them. We’d rather have a seat at the table than on the sidelines.”

The partnership, which the studio and Google unveiled on Monday, will give A24 and its tech arm, A24 Labs, access to DeepMind’s research and infrastructure, while the unit’s researchers will work with the studio to build out new workflows and figure out what tools filmmakers may want. The deal does not give Google access to A24’s content library or its data, and there is no mandate for filmmakers to use the tools. A24 fans were not pleased on social media and took to the studio’s Instagram and X posts to leave comments that accused A24 of betraying the audience it serves.

“What the hell is up with the AI collaboration? Do you know your fanbase?” one Instagram comment read on a post advertising the upcoming A24 film “The Debut,” while another X user wrote that the deal exhibited “rancid” behavior.

The controversial deal represents the latest marriage between a Hollywood studio and AI in an era where companies have tried to figure out how to engage with the ever-present technology while protecting their copyrights and intellectual property. Disney’s short-lived deal with OpenAI to license its suite of characters came as it sued AI companies such as MiniMax and Midjourney for copyright infringement, while Lionsgate this month expanded its partnership with the AI firm Runway to develop new franchises and produce AI-generated shows drawing from its existing IP. Netflix also purchased Ben Affleck’s AI startup InterPositive, aimed at building tools for filmmakers, earlier this year.

Demis Hassabis, DeepMind’s CEO and co-founder, said in a blog post this week the company believes “the best way to develop tools that empower artists is to work directly with them.”

“By collaborating with filmmakers and industry leaders like A24 from the beginning, we can build new AI features to support artists in authentic, meaningful storytelling that helps enable their creative vision,” he wrote.

Some of A24’s legion of filmmakers have been outspoken in condemning AI’s incorporation into the filmmaking process.

“Backrooms” director Kane Parsons called generative AI “a symptom of broader cultural and economic rot” in an interview with the Australian earlier this month and said that, while there may be use cases in VFX-related work, “it’s difficult to discuss objectively because there’s so much at stake and so many genuinely harmful consequences already happening.”

“I think I’m in the same boat as most well-adjusted people,” he told the paper. “If I could snap my fingers and make generative AI disappear forever, I probably would. Creatively, I get no enjoyment from using those tools. It defeats the purpose entirely for me.”

“Heretic” directors Scott Beck and Bryan Woods included a disclaimer in the credits of their A24-distributed film that “no generative AI was used in the making of this film,” one Beck said the studio was fine leaving in there.

“We are in a time where I feel like creatively we’re in one of the big ethical battles, and the race is already ahead of us,” Beck told Variety at the time. “The importance is to have these conversations before they force things in, just because it makes sense from a corporate structure. It’s incredibly dangerous. If there’s not people to throttle it, we’re going to find ourselves in five to ten years in a very dangerous situation.”