From a consumer point of view sure. The issue, the thing thats got a lot of people in the industry upset, is the fact that this stuff could cost a lot of jobs if it goes too far, and in an industry thats been absolutely struggling due to the dual impacts of streaming* and the fact covid stopped people going to theatres, yeah thats a lot of folks out of work.. Plus, again, its not clear at all who actually owns the end product since the courts are fairly clear that you can only copyright the creative products of humans not AIs.
*The reason streaming has been such a catastrophe for film workers is under the old regime, people who worked on a film generally got paid a wage plus points, that is a tiny fraction of the profits over time for each 'point'. The end result is that because film and TV production is very seasonal, film production people could smoothe out their income using royalties from points when theres no shows currently in production. It turned it from a part time job into a career. Unfortunately , because tech-bros are ass-hats, the streaming giants generally refuse to pay points, and when streaming rights where sold to them by the studios, the people that worked on them didnt get any points for it. This, by the way, was the real reason for those SAG-AFRA and Writers strikes, the very real sense that the people who worked on all those shows and TVs got shafted out of their royalties.
Its not clear at all that the no-points thing are actually legal, btw, since it does seem on the face of it that its reneging on the contracts signed by the film workers. While its unlikely to be *fraudulent*, judges have a tendency to look dimly on people using obscure technicalities to get out of paying people agreed on revenues when it comes to civil agreements.