A number of prominent filmmaking creators, among them Matti Haapoja and Sam "Kold" Kolder, published videos demonstrating what is possible with the AI platform Higgsfield. The videos highlight the platform's recently added Seedance 2.5 functionality and pitch these technologies as the future of video production.

An argument about disclosure

Shortly after the videos appeared, other creators began sharing what appear to be screenshots of partnership offers they had received from PR firms working on Higgsfield's behalf. Those posts led viewers to conclude the company had been trying to use creators to raise its profile and buy goodwill.

The crux was disclosure. Neither Haapoja's nor Kolder's video was labeled as an ad, and neither creator responded to The Verge's questions about whether these were paid partnerships. After the story was published, Higgsfield PR manager Nuray Omarkhan said the creators "were compensated through a negotiated combination of monetary payment and Higgsfield credits."

Two videos, two receptions

The content itself fed the argument:

  • Haapoja's video plays like an infomercial. He explains how Cully Hill Boys — Higgsfield's feature-length film starring AI-generated duplicates of YouTubers Mikyle "N3on" Rafiq and Matt Kiatipis — was produced with prompts, and demonstrates Seedance 2.5 by placing manipulated footage of himself in various science-fiction settings.
  • Kolder's video is titled "AI is replacing me." It opens with his background in video production before turning into a fictionalized narrative in which he explores Mauritania with the help of a robot.

Both blend footage of real people with distinctly uncanny AI-generated imagery.

Criticism from peers

On Threads, Haapoja's video drew pushback from fans and from other creators who consider him a peer. Marques Brownlee took issue with Haapoja likening generative AI to the Canon EOS 5D Mark II, the DSLR known for making 1080p shooting affordable for independent filmmakers. Brownlee's point was that the 5D Mark II was a physical tool people still had to learn to use, whereas generative AI is "trained on real human-made material without any credit."

Kolder's reception was more mixed. For every few "absolute cinema!" or "amazing transitions!" comments on YouTube, there were viewers lamenting that "AI defeated our king" and insisting that "no AI can replace creative artists."

Why it matters

Higgsfield's Cully Hill Boys did not draw anything like this reaction when it debuted. Its cast had given the company the right to use their likenesses and largely escaped criticism. What amplified the backlash was not the film but the shape of the promotion around it.

The question here is not really whether AI belongs in video production. It is how quickly undisclosed paid promotion burns through trust in a medium built on it. What these creators lost was not a technology argument but their viewers' assumption about whose interests they were watching.