With regard to Generative Artificial Intelligence and other digital tools used in the making of the film, the tools neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination. The Academy and each branch will judge the achievement, taking into account the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship when choosing which movie to award.
Its probably better this way.
Otherwise you end up with people accusing movies of using AI when they didn’t.
And then there’s the question of how you decide where to draw the line for what’s considered AI as well as how much of it was used to help with the end result.
Did you use AI for storyboarding, but no diffusion tools were used in the end product?
Did one of the writers use ChatGPT for brainstorming some ideas but nothing was copy/pasted from directly?
Did they use a speech to text model to help create the subtitles in different languages, but then double checked all the work with translators?
Etc.
Also AI isn’t only LLMs and image generation, it’s a massive field that’s been used in different things for decades. “No AI” would mean “back to snipping movies using practical effects together from spools of film”, as basically every CGI and editing software uses something “AI” in it these days.
Or worse, all movies lying into everyone’s face that they don’t use AI much like they have been doing with the ‘No CGI’ lies in recent years.