On June 5, 98% of SAG-AFTRA members — representing 160,000 film and television actors — voted to authorize a strike if they don’t reach a deal with the AMPTP (Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers on Wednesday) by June 30.
SAG-AFTRA joins the WGA (Writer’s Guild of America) which went on strike in May. While each union has different concerns, common between them is concerns over the film and television industry’s prospective use of AI (artificial intelligence) and what it will mean for writers and actors.
Should both unions strike at the same time, it would completely shut down production in Hollywood. Already, some television productions have gone dark without scripts to film.
In the discussions with the AMPTP leading up to the strike, the WGA proposed a go-forward resolution that AI would not be used to write or rewrite literary material, and that the work its members did could not be used to train generative AI. The AMPTP rejected the proposal and offered, instead, an annual meeting to “discuss advancements in technology.”
SAG-AFTRA seeks to stipulate that using AI to replicate an actor’s voice, likeness, or create a new performance must only be done with that actor’s consent and with payment.
Nick Bilton, writing in Vanity Fair, outlined the potential changes AI could bring to the industry:
“At the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills last week, this was the topic du jour, with Todd Lieberman, a movie producer, saying that in three years, a “good” movie will come out that will have been written and created by an AI, which was echoed by Fox Entertainment CEO Rob Wade, who noted that it won’t just be screenwriting, but it will be everything, from editing to storyboarding to directing. “AI in the future, maybe not next year or the year after, but if we’re talking 10 years? AI is [absolutely] going to be able to do all of these things,” Wade said.”
What does the future look like for Hollywood writers and consumers of their work?
Josh Friedman, a screenwriter on the picket lines in L.A. framed it slightly differently, saying that what ChatGPT and Bard do “isn’t writing—it’s scraping other people’s work. It’s a plagiarizing machine.”
So, the gauntlet has been thrown down.
Of course, there are those that will view Hollywood unions battling the forces of technological disruption as just business-as-usual; the latest and greatest of a series of innovations and outsourcings that hollowed out North America’s manufacturing base and replaced local workers with software, apps or overseas workforces.
For example, manufacturing employment in the U.S. reached an all-time peak of 19.6 million in 1979. In 2019, that number was 12.8 million, down 6.7 million or 35 percent from the peak.
This is just how it goes, right? And, after all, Hollywood = wealthy coastal elites, right?
Not quite.
This isn’t just a problem of two groups deciding who gets to be richest. A majority of professional writers and actors are decidedly middle class. Many are struggling. In fact, half of WGA-writers receive only collective agreement-mandated minimum compensation for their work. That’s up from a third of writers in the same position a decade ago.
But there’s another consideration that goes beyond contract negotiations.
There is a non-zero chance that within a decade or two, someone could come home from work, kick their feet up in front of their TV, and instruct the embedded algorithm to create an original on-demand program for them to watch. For example, “I want to watch a one-hour drama about space cops battling space pirates featuring Marilyn Monroe and Jamie Foxx except Marilyn is Black and Jamie is white and there’s at least one musical number featuring the songs of Phil Collins and there’s a bunny rabbit who looks like the one I had when I was six.”
And within seconds that exact show starts playing.
This is not an imagined future. In fact, it might be the most likely one. Your New Favourite Movie: Written, Acted, and Directed by AI.
It all might depend on what happens with these labour actions. But there’s another question to consider.
What exactly are we giving up, societally, if SAG-AFTRA and the WGA lose their current battles against AI? Are we surrendering some essential part of our culture?
Robots don’t have childhood trauma to inform their ‘writing.’ They have no specific or unique human experiences. They have only a recycled amalgamation and cut-and-paste of what’s come before.
As James Poniewozik of the New York Times writes:
“The potential rise of A.I. has workplace implications for writers, but it’s not only a labor issue. We, too, have a stake in the war with the storybots. A culture that is fed entirely by regurgitating existing ideas is a stagnant one. We need invention, experimentation and, yes, failure, in order to advance and evolve. The logical conclusion of an algorithmicized, “more like what you just watched” entertainment industry is a popular culture that just … stops.”
The human vs AI battlefield will also take place in courts and legislatures
It’s not just Hollywood seeing these battles.
Stock image provider Getty Images is suing Stability AI, alleging that the company copied 12 million of its proprietary images to train its AI model ‘without permission … or compensation.’
It’s worth noting that Getty has licenced its images and data to other AI providers for compensation, and the crux of the argument against Stability AI is that it scraped Getty’s images without a contracted agreement.
Meanwhile, Italy has (at least temporarily) banned ChatGPT given its potential violations of European data privacy laws.
Governments, regulators, and courts will increasingly be involved as humans struggle to process how to manage this genie that’s popped out of the bottle, and wants to know everything we’ve ever known.
This battle in Hollywood may be just the tip of the iceberg in the coming struggles between all knowledge workers, who could see their roles or compensation vastly changed, and the ownership/tech class who see opportunities to become more efficient and productive by stripping out human effort using generative AI.
As writer, investor, researcher, and AI observer Paul Kedrosky told Bilton:
“Too many people are trapped in the past, arguing that we have always had to adapt to new technologies. Yes, but we have never been chased by an all-encompassing technology whose DNA is evolving in real time so quickly. Our attempts to stay ahead are charmingly vestigial, like buying expensive carbon plate running shoes to out-run a rocket-powered steamroller.”
What’s next for AI in Hollywood?
A third Hollywood union, the Director’s Guild of America (DGA), announced a tentative deal with the AMPTP on June 3.
The Hollywood Reporter noted the deal’s language on AI:
“..the tentative contract specifies that generative artificial intelligence is not a person and that work performed by DGA members must be assigned to a person. Moreover, “Employers may not use GAI [generative artificial intelligence] in connection with creative elements without consultation with the Director or other DGA-covered employees” and top entertainment companies and the union must meet twice annually to “discuss and negotiate over AI.”
Guild members must ratify the agreement over the next two weeks. If the membership accepts the agreement, it may set a precedent for SAG-AFTRA and the WGA.
In the meantime, writers like Ben Ripley will continue to worry about what AI might mean for his profession.
Writers “have to be original,” he said. “Artificial intelligence is the antithesis of originality.”
