I think literally everyone could agree CGI has been detrimental to the quality of films.

"Literally everyone" can't even agree on whether Polio is bad.

I myself would disagree that CGI itself is a bad thing.

I could maybe agree in the sense of "has had detrimental effects", but certainly not in the sense of "net detrimental".

90% of the time, you wouldn't know CGI if you saw it. That's the 'good' CGI.

Same thing is true of AI output.

Anecdata-- from me. I think cgi can be a net positive.

Not just in the obvious ways either, even good CGI has been detrimental to the film (and TV) making process.

I was watching some behind the scenes footage from something recently, and the thing that struck me most was just how they wouldn't bother with the location shoot now and just green-screen it all for the convenience.

Even good CGI is changing not just how films are made, but what kinds of films get shot and what kind of stories get told.

Regardless of the quality of the output, there's a creativeness in film-making that is lost as CGI gets better and cheaper to do.

Project Hail Mary is a great example of not relying on CGI.