The Writers Guild of America (WGA) was on strike for 148 days this year in opposition to studios in an effort to secure a new contract that would allow writers to have a more active role in the industry. Although economics is at the heart of the conflicts, the threat presented by so-called artificial intelligence—products like ChatGPT—to the livelihood of creative professions, especially authors, has drawn the most public attention.
A generative artificial intelligence programme called ChatGPT was developed to anticipate words that should come after a text prompt or word string. It was trained on a sizable corpus of text. It is not intelligent, although its user interface has been created to give the impression of intelligence.
Studios perceive that generative artificial intelligence is a tool they can use against writers. For example, awards programmes and sitcoms can be formulaic, which encourages writers to mimic scripts that have been successful in the past. Theoretically, such a script could be provided by a well-built generative artificial intelligence. However, studio executives have taken things a step further and believe that tools like ChatGPT will revolutionise the writing process for anything from award shows to full films. This is seen by studios as a potential cost-saving measure as well as a means of transforming scriptwriting from copyrightable work to labour for hire.
“The immediate fear of AI isn’t that we writers will have our work replaced by artificially generated content. It’s that we will be underpaid to rewrite that trash into something we could have done better from the start. This is what the WGA is opposing and the studios want,” WGA member and writer C Robert Cargill said in a tweet.
The AMPTP (Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers) reportedly released a statement in which it stated that the best tales are distinctive, perceptive, and frequently drawn from people’s personal experiences. AI poses challenging, crucial, and legal problems to everyone.
Although the AMPTP acknowledged that it encouraged authors to include technology in their work, it did so ‘without changing how credits are determined, which is complicated given that AI material can’t be copyrighted.’ It is worrying for writers since generative AI may easily create various types of content. Although there are legitimate reasons to disagree with the content’s quality, it can at least be used. The AMPTP did stress in the statement that any artificial intelligence-generated content ‘would not be eligible for writing credit.’
Meanwhile, Walt Disney has established a task force to investigate artificial intelligence and how it can be deployed across the entertainment giant. The group was established earlier this year, ahead of the Hollywood writers’ strike, and is aiming to create internal AI applications as well as collaborate with external startups, Reuters reported.
A few weeks back, Disney offered 11 job vacancies looking for applicants with experience in artificial intelligence or machine learning, demonstrating their interest in the field. Positions were available in almost every department of the business, including Walt Disney Studios, Walt Disney Imagineering, the company’s theme parks, Disney-branded television, and the advertising team, which is working to develop a next-generation of advertising.
On the other hand, experts think CEOs in the Hollywood industry anticipate lower labour expenses due to generative AI, but they neglect to include Silicon Valley’s intentions to employ AI to transform Hollywood into what it was for news and music. In a piece about social media, Cory Doctorow, Canadian-British blogger describes the pattern that Silicon Valley’s bait-and-switch strategies adhere to as ‘enshittification.’ Social networking platforms entice users with incentives until they become addicted, at which point they ‘enshittify’ the site to attract advertisers. Platforms ‘enshittify’ users’ and marketers’ experiences once they are on board to maximise value. They honed their strategy at Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, and TikTok, and they are now applying it elsewhere.
This is evident in video streaming technology, which is the opening salvo in a campaign against Hollywood. As usual, Big Tech set the trap by offering quick wins like increased programming spending, which led to the emergence of a golden era of excellent, short-run series. The number of shows increased dramatically thanks to streaming, but because there were fewer episodes per show, writers were only paid for eight or 10 weeks at a period. Additionally, television syndication, which had been a significant source of income for writers, was undermined by streaming. The proclaimed advantages of streaming have gradually diminished over the last two years as studios have entered the market, saturating consumer demand and pressuring all parties to reduce costs.
Now, generative artificial intelligence is the potentially fatal shot, the one that could force copyright owners to give over their collection of scripts that they have been building for years in exchange for unrealised benefits. Silicon Valley only needs to appeal to one group of people when it comes to generative AI and video: Hollywood execs. Studios will be at the whim of the companies selling that technology after they have invested in it. It took place in journalism. It took place in music. These businesses were not destroyed by Silicon Valley, but they did seize control of the audience and take a sizable chunk of the earnings. Generative AI is an intelligence test for studio executives.
The best way forward for studios and writers is to acknowledge four realities. First, generative artificial intelligence will someday prove to be a useful tool in certain creative fields, possibly even in scriptwriting, but only if the AI has been specifically designed for that purpose.
Second, current generative AIs are inappropriate for meaningful work, especially in the creative industries, due to their faults. General-purpose AIs, like ChatGPT, are trained on any online content the designer can grab, hence their output frequently consists of nonsense dressed up to appear authoritative. They can only mimic their training set at best. Unless their training set consists of a vast library of Hollywood scripts, these AIs will never be any good at writing original scripts, even of the most formulaic programming.
Third, writers and studios share a shared enemy which is Silicon Valley. The idea that studios can collaborate with AI firms to pressure writers without suffering personal harm is a fantasy. Silicon Valley is setting a trap with studio revenues as the intended prey and a probable decrease in writer salary as the bait.
Fourth, Hollywood can certainly develop its own generative AI to rival ChatGPT. The intellectual property required to create a fantastic AI is under the custody of studios and authors. ChatGPT would be significantly outperformed by a generative AI that is taught on every script submitted by a single studio or group of studios. Would it result in the following Casablanca? No. However, it might result in a superb first draft of a script for an Emmy Awards programme. Additionally, it would protect Hollywood’s commercial strategy for the coming generation.
The future of Hollywood will be far brighter if studios collaborate or work independently to produce artificial intelligence they control. A legal strategy of copyright infringement lawsuits against the primary participants in generative AI is at the heart of this fourth argument. Hollywood needs to oppose Silicon Valley’s claim of the right to ‘permissionless innovation,’ which has turned into a haven for defying the law in areas like consumer safety, public health, and copyright, if copyright is to mean anything at all.
Some people could argue that Hollywood cannot ‘do technology.’ The idea is absurd. Hollywood can not only master technology, but also innovate in it, as seen by Pixar, Weta Digital, and the CGI special effects sector. For generative artificial intelligence, there are numerous open-source designs available. Studios and the WGA can pay a small licensing fee and hire a few engineers to train their own AI with them. Although it will take many years, copyright litigation will buy the industry the necessary time, and it might even turn into a significant source of revenue.
There are important issues that need to be settled between the writers and studios. Although artificial intelligence is a topic of discussion, it differs significantly from the other topics at hand. As it has done with other forms of media, the IT sector intends to employ generative AI to extort money from the film and television industries. The issue is whether studios will make the same errors in music and journalism.