If you’re a fan of TV and movies, or if you’re a writer in some capacity, you’ve probably heard something about the ongoing Writers Guild of America (WGA) strike. I support the WGA, of course, but plenty has been written elsewhere about their plight, so I’m not here to comment on the specifics of the dispute. But, one of the union’s demands in particular caught my attention because its repercussions touch us all. Screenwriters are currently struggling with unforeseen changes instituted after the industry’s shift toward streaming. However, another potentially more devastating change looms large on the horizon: Artificial Intelligence (AI).
On the subject of AI in screenwriting, WGA Negotiating Committee Co-Chair Chris Keyser said:
Right now, I think we have a pretty simple philosophy, which is AI can’t be literary material. It can’t be a draft that we have to rewrite. It doesn’t mean that companies won’t use it in some ways. It can be research material — but it can’t be literary material. I’ll say this, no one knows exactly what AI’s going to be, but the fact that the companies won’t talk about it is the best indication we’ve had that we have a reason to fear it.
The 11,500 film and TV writers who are members of the WGA are facing an existential threat to their livelihoods. This may be their last chance to meaningfully (re)negotiate terms with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP). Take a moment to consider how disproportionate this fight is: the AMPTP is a coalition of eight media titans—Amazon, Apple, Disney, Warner Bros Discovery, NBC Universal, Netflix, Paramount, and Sony—aligned against 11,500 writers without whom they would have no product. Without scripts by screenwriters, there are no TV shows or movies. But with the industry churning out more content than ever, it has also been finding more and more ways to cut writers out. Now the AMPTP seems to think it can do without them altogether thanks to AI.
Here is a handy glossary of industry terms that help explain the issue.
The WGA sees the writing on the wall. A strike is risky, but if they don’t push for negotiations on this issue ASAP, AMPTP will drag their feet, and in a few months, the tech could advance to the point where there could be a Reagan/air traffic controllers bloodbath. It’s now or never. AI may not be a workable alternative to real writers right now, but it might be soon. Getting in front of that is essential if writing is to remain a viable career (and we still have a few things left to watch besides reality TV, shitty remakes, and annoying animation.)
It’s also a choice we make as a society to preserve whatever human elements we can, while we can. I don’t use the ATM when I can go inside the bank to the teller; I don’t use the self-checkout when I can go to a cashier. I won’t talk to a robot when I call customer service—I demand to speak to a live person. These are still real people’s jobs that matter to them and to society. When I have an issue, I want to deal with a real human being, not chase my tail with an automated system. I don’t even want to imagine a world where, everywhere we turn, people are all displaced by machines because we carelessly (or expediently) allowed them to be.
Though people may sometimes disappoint, inconvenience, or frustrate us, the healthy impulse isn’t to relieve them of their duties and substitute more profitable, synthetic replicas in their stead. It’s to embrace humanity, which means accepting that our many blessings come with a little baggage. It’s to appreciate our species’ flawed, imaginative, and unorthodox members who create the evocative things no machine will ever understand. I want to live in a world of, by, and for organic creatures—even (especially) the imperfect ones. But that’s now a choice we have to consciously make.
The Luddites were right in that regard. Technological advance for its own sake—and replacement by machines—isn’t inevitable. It’s not synonymous with cultural or moral progress. Societies are living organisms, and culture is their means of survival and reproduction—their strategy for self-preservation. Technologies are part of that strategy, of course. But history is also full of examples of tools we have thankfully shelved—some after disastrous consequences. The success or failure of societies depends on their ability to discern which practices, beliefs, tools, institutions, etc. are helpful or hurtful to their long-term preservation. We’re not so good at this anymore.
Of course, with the initiative to bring greater diversity to, well, everything, replacing screenwriters with a single pseudomind that simulates myriad human identities (egads, talk about “appropriation”!) will hardly improve the actual diversity or authenticity of experiences or perspectives being represented. Is commissioning a soulless machine to decide what’s worthwhile or meaningful a good strategy for fostering a diverse culture? Because I’m not even thrilled with allowing soulless corporations to judge for us. Handing that responsibility to machines owned by corporations seems magnitudes worse.
It’s hard to say what the future holds for screenwriters—and writers generally—in the face of AI. This could be a kind of test case. Sometimes the squeaky wheel doesn’t get oiled, it gets replaced. While the WGA members are striking, the industry is probably plotting to install AI and scabs in their place. But, if they do, they’ll lose my viewership. To me, watching shows produced this way would be like crossing a picket line. Also, I’m pretty sure they’d suck. The industry's commitment to “art” is already tenuous. AI will only amplify the banality. Not to mention, the last strike in 2007 birthed the Kardashians. What social mutations will this spawn? I shudder to think…
I don’t fool myself that AI is going away. Nevertheless, an AI takeover shouldn’t just be taken lying down. For professional writers, the collective action of unions is perhaps the only recourse they have to keep irresistible behemoths like AMPTP in check. It might be the only way to withstand the overwhelming force of AI. I hope more workers take similar action, especially if AI threatens their jobs now or in the future. Individuals have similar choices to make in their daily lives. For me, this is an advantage of being an indie fiction writer. I make my own terms. I wouldn’t trade that for anything these days.
AI may produce awful or wonderful literature as it has produced misshapen and masterful art. My concern is not so much with the quality of the content AI produces, but rather with what passing humanity’s torch to a counterfeit consciousness signifies—and what that relinquishing of curiosity, creativity, and accomplishment portends for the soul of the species. Who will we become when there is nothing left to aspire to—when all our life’s purpose is ceded to a clever appliance?
AI is a tasteless poison. The further we segregate ourselves from the nature that made us, and give ourselves over to the machines we made, the further divorced we become from our humanity. There are invisible picket lines everywhere around us—at the bank, the grocery store, online—and every day, whether we realize it or not, we decide where our solidarity lies.
This essay was inspired by a conversation with Daniel W. Davison, who writes the excellent Lamp Post in the Marsh. Thanks to Daniel for always providing food for thought. If you’re not already a subscriber, be sure to check out Daniel’s work!
Solidarity with Humanity
I agree with your post wholeheartedly. We are becoming a society of non-thinkers and non-individuals. If we let AI take over for our human selves even a little bit, where will it leave society in the future. Not only is it taking jobs from real people and leaving them without means to support themselves, it is making these huge conglomerates more money and giving them more power every time we let them replace a human with a robot.
Jacquie, you just bashed on the head the zombie I hadn’t realised was squatting within me! Dusting off the drawing board. 🙌🏻