AI partnerships are creating controversy among some of YouTube’s prominent filmmaking creators after videos promoting Higgsfield’s generative AI tools drew criticism from parts of their audiences.
The controversy centers on creators Matti Haapoja and Sam “Kolder” Kolder, who recently published videos demonstrating Higgsfield’s AI capabilities and its integration of Seedance 2.5. While the videos present the technology as a powerful new tool for filmmaking, some viewers have questioned whether the content was effectively sponsored promotion.
The situation has also reignited a broader debate about how creators should approach partnerships with AI companies at a time when generative AI remains controversial among filmmakers, artists, and other creative professionals.
The Challenge of AI Partnerships for Creators
Haapoja and Kolder have established large audiences around filmmaking, cinematography, and visual storytelling. Their recent videos take a noticeably different approach by placing AI-generated production techniques at the center of their content.
Haapoja’s video demonstrates how AI tools can be used to create visual effects and place footage of himself into fictional environments. He also discusses the production of Cully Hill Boys, a feature-length project associated with Higgsfield that uses AI-generated versions of YouTubers.
Kolder’s video, titled “AI is replacing me,” takes a more narrative-driven approach. It combines traditional footage with AI-generated sequences as he explores a fictional scenario involving a robotic companion.
For creators, AI partnerships can provide new commercial opportunities while also creating reputational risks.
Both videos portray AI as a technology capable of significantly changing the filmmaking process.
The growing commercial relationship between AI companies and online audiences is also changing how these businesses approach advertising and promotion, as seen in the expansion of ChatGPT advertising across Europe.
That message, however, did not resonate with everyone watching.
Questions About Sponsorship
The controversy intensified after other creators shared what appeared to be partnership offers from public relations firms working with Higgsfield.
Haapoja’s and Kolder’s videos were not initially labeled as advertisements, and questions were raised about whether the creators had received compensation for their work.
After the original reporting was published, Higgsfield PR manager Nuray Omarkhan said that the creators were compensated through a combination of monetary payment and Higgsfield credits.
The controversy shows why AI partnerships may require greater transparency as generative AI becomes more widespread.
That detail has added another layer to the discussion surrounding the videos. The issue is not simply whether creators are using AI tools, but whether audiences were given enough information about the commercial relationship behind the content.
For viewers who follow creators because they trust their opinions, transparency around sponsorships can be particularly important.
AI Is Already Dividing Creative Communities
The reaction to the videos reflects a much larger disagreement about generative AI.
Supporters argue that AI tools can make sophisticated visual production more accessible and allow smaller teams to achieve effects that previously required expensive equipment, large crews, and significant production budgets.
Critics, meanwhile, remain concerned about how AI models are trained, the use of human-created material, the potential impact on creative jobs, and questions surrounding consent and compensation.
That tension was visible in the response to Haapoja’s video. Marques Brownlee, known online as MKBHD, criticized a comparison between generative AI and the Canon EOS 5D Mark II.
The argument was that a conventional camera is a tool that still requires a person to create the work, while generative AI systems rely on models trained using large quantities of human-created material.
Different Reactions From Different Audiences
The response to Kolder’s video has been more mixed.
Some viewers praised its visual effects and filmmaking techniques, while others expressed concern that AI could eventually reduce opportunities for human creatives.
That difference is important because it shows that audiences are not necessarily united in their opinion of AI-generated content.
Some viewers see the technology as another development in the history of filmmaking tools. Others see it as fundamentally different because of the way modern AI systems are developed and the possibility that they could replace parts of creative workflows.
For creators whose careers are built around human filmmaking skills, publicly endorsing AI can therefore carry significant reputational risks.
The Challenge for AI Companies and Creators
The controversy highlights a difficult marketing problem for companies developing generative AI tools.
Traditional advertising can be clearly identified as paid promotion. Influencer partnerships are different because creators often have a much more personal relationship with their audiences.
Viewers may accept a creator recommending a camera, editing application, or other filmmaking product because the recommendation appears to come from practical experience.
AI products can be more complicated.
A filmmaker promoting an AI video platform may be perceived as endorsing technology that could eventually compete with some of the skills and jobs that helped build their own career.
That creates a potential conflict between commercial opportunities and audience expectations.
Transparency Could Become More Important
The discussion also demonstrates why sponsorship disclosure is becoming increasingly important for online creators.
When audiences cannot immediately tell whether a video represents an independent opinion or a paid partnership, viewers may question the creator’s motives once the commercial relationship becomes known.
For AI companies, working with trusted creators can be an effective way to demonstrate new technology. But if those partnerships are perceived as insufficiently transparent, the campaign can generate criticism instead of goodwill.
The situation involving Haapoja and Kolder is therefore about more than two YouTube videos. It reflects the growing challenge facing creators who must decide how closely they want to associate themselves with rapidly developing AI technologies.
As generative video tools become more capable, creators will likely face more decisions about whether to embrace them, criticize them, or find a middle ground.
For audiences, the question may increasingly become not only what AI can create, but also who is promoting it, why they are promoting it, and whether viewers are being given the full picture.
Source: The Verge, with additional information from Higgsfield and public creator posts.