A.I. and Hollywood-WCC STEM Scholars Newsletter August 2023

In a day and age where technology is rapidly advancing, it may not come as a surprise that we are becoming more fixated on making our machines more intelligent. This can come in a variety of ways such as changing speech-to-text and vice versa, recommended searches, language translation, as well as creative tools. Although artificial intelligence can provide many benefits to make our lives easier, it also has created many drawbacks and risks in terms of morality and ethics. Over the next several months, I will be taking us on a tour exploring the both the positives and the negatives that these advancements in technology have and will continue to provide to our society in various different, ranging from academics, to creativity, to employment, to even our democracy. The issue of “just because we can, doesn't mean we should” hangs in the balance in every different aspect that A.I. impacts.

Those of us who follow the entertainment news world are almost certainly aware of the strike being held by the Writers Guild of America a couple months ago. The strike began following a standoff in negotiations between them and producers in film and television. Although the main reason behind the protests has to do with streaming services, a good chunk of this dispute is also focused on the Writers Guild wanting to ban the use of A.I. software to write screenplays for movies and TV shows, fearing that such software, like ChatGPT, will replace them in the industry. Furthermore, the WGA also doesn’t want any scripts they have already written to be used for A.I.-training. These protests mirror similar backlash against tech companies using previous work from those created by actual writers, artists, etc. in order to have AI create the work. Instead of accepting the proposal, Hollywood studios and streaming services offered to meet with the WGA every year to address the new changes in tech. The WGA is not satisfied with this offer.

“This is a pretty weak commitment; the writers would have little power in those discussions to influence how the technologies are used,” says Virginia Doellgast, a professor of Employment Relations at Cornell University. “The studios don’t want to negotiate hard limits on how they will use A.I.” Nevertheless, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers did address the concerns about the legality and ethical issues regarding the use of artificial intelligence in writing purposes and acknowledged that only the people who put in the time and effort into script-writing would get credit as opposed to any A.I.

The generative A.I. at the heart of the controversy is predominantly a large-language model called ChatGPT, which pulls written information from all across the internet and compiles it into a way that seems very human. This is also the same A.I. software that has gotten criticism of its usage surrounding academic integrity in colleges and schools. It cannot create original material very well, but it can summarize an enormous amount of data quite effectively, making it very trainable. Recently, a fan of Star Wars tested the capabilities of ChatGPT by having it ignore the Disney-made Star Wars movies and create its own plots to the movies as if George Lucas created them instead. The result was three movies with a much more concise narrative with a few new main characters and even created scenes for the original characters to appear every now and then. While it was nothing more than a rough draft, it was more than enough to undergo a few modifications and revisions to be produced into film.

The WGA is not the only union in the entertainment industry fearing the ramifications of A.I. usage. Just recently, the Screen Actors Guild joined the strike to limit the use of A.I. to enhance or modify the performances and/or appearances, thus indicating that they are not willing to let A.I. take over their creative efforts for something of lesser quality. These concerns are not far-fetched, as a recent deal from Netflix gave them the right to digitally recreate actors’ voices for any project of their choosing. Netflix reported to the New York Times that the intentions were that it was to be done when a voice actor could no longer partake in an animated show, enabling the show creators to flawlessly switch from the old actor to the new. However, there are also fears that this could lead to the ethical issue of digitally recreating the actor’s physical appearance in the event that said actor dies during production. Not only that, but A.I. creating actors that look and sound exactly like the ones they want could result in them not needing to hire real ones. According to Sarah Myers-West, the Managing Director of the AI Now Institute, “The WGA is pointing out an important question; who is benefiting from the development and use of these systems, and who is harmed by them?”

Reed Alexander, a former child actor best known for his role as the bratty Nevel Papperman on iCarly, recalls being “warned of an imminent technological revolution that would unseat many longstanding foundations of the entertainment industry's business model” during his acting days, citing video-sharing platforms such as YouTube, which would automatically make people celebrities without having to audition. Now a journalist for the Business Insider, Alexander looks back at what had been foretold to him as disturbingly accurate, especially in regard to streaming services breaking the traditional rules of creating movies and shows. The results have left writers with drastic pay cuts. While both actors and writers have different concerns resulting from the rise of A.I. as a result of their own unique needs, they both have the same goal of raising up people from all fields in not just the entertainment industry, but other industries as well. Much like how robots have taken over jobs from blue-collar workers, A.I. has started to take over jobs from white-collar workers. The struggle in Hollywood is merely just the spotlight of what is happening in the wider world.

Despite any progress that could be made by the strikes, Alexander fears that it won’t deter the invasion of the entertainment industry, or any other industry by big tech. “Wall Street and Big Tech are salivating over the money-making potential of this land grab [and investors] are buzzing over start-ups that harness algorithms to predict box office hits before they're even produced,” he wrote in an article for the Business Insider. “Studios are digitally altering voices and virtually resurrecting deceased stars. Creators have racked up wealth and big followings via TikTok and Instagram — linchpins of the now ubiquitous creator economy that, according to Goldman Sachs, could be worth nearly half a trillion dollars in just four years.” To Alexander, these technological changes are like a massive wave washing everything about creativity and imagination away. “So many people hoping to break into the industry are out of work, and this year, as entertainment companies have slashed 15,000 jobs in bids to cut costs and satisfy shareholders, job-seekers are confronting slim pickings.” Although he believes that this issue will be settled, it will only occur if big tech corporations are willing to compromise with the demands of the creators, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

It should be noted that the use of A.I. should not always be considered negative, as it can help artists and creators to produce their work faster. It can be a great starting point for certain types of artistic work, requiring only the odd touch up here and there afterwards. However, while it may be currently used as just an aid or a means of speeding up aspects of their workflow in order to serve their clients in a faster and more efficient manner, there is always a risk that the client could end up going straight to A.I. in order to get their needs met. As such, the risk of so many writers being out of work because directors and producers could just turn to A.I. to create the scripts they want for free is still out there. A.I. cannot truly come up with original content; it can only create content based on that which already exists, resulting in works that are basically 100% deri- vative. Considering that many newer films out there have gotten criticism for having similar storylines, plot elements, and ideas to other films and lacking much originality (one case being Pixar's Elemental being derivative of Disney’s Zootopia), it may not be surprising if a decent A.I. could produce a script that was just as good, if not better than many of the human-written scripts being produced by Hollywood nowadays. No matter how sophisticated it is, artificial intelligence cannot truly overcome the true power of human innovation and imagination, but its cheap and easy access could definitely threaten the creative talents of writers everywhere. It is not implausible to believe that, somewhere in the future, a director could create an entire movie with A.I. alone, with neither any cast nor production crew.

Putting an end to using A.I. in creative fields may be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, but the strikes from actors and writers has resulted in an agreement from the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. This agreement has given the writers more authority over how A.I. can be used in their work, and thus guarantees that they get the credit they deserve, regardless of whether A.I. was involved in the writing process. According to Simon Johnson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the most critical aspect regarding the A.I. controversy is who rols it, the creatives or executives. If the people in charge are the creatives, then both parties will prosper, but if the executives control it, the creatives will lose big time. Already, what we are seeing is playing out like a dystopian movie plot. One that, as Reed Alexander would put it, would be a “perfect job for a Hollywood writer.”

Works Cited

Alexander, R. (2023, July 13). Actors are joining writers on strike against the Hollywood companies, and they’re driven by a fear plaguing workers everywhere: AI is coming for our jobs. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/hollywood-writers-strike-over-technology-ai- netflix-streaming-studios-2023-7?op=1

Broderick, R. (2023, May 31). AI can’t replace humans yet - but if the WGA writers don’t win, it might not matter. Polygon. https://www.polygon.com/23742770/ai-writers-strike-chat-gpt- explained

Oleksinski, J. (2023, May 9). Recreating actors’ voices with AI means more boring Hollywood crud. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2023/05/09/recreating-actors-voices-with-ai-means- more-hollywood-crud/

Pratt, T. (2023, May 5). An AI rewrites the star wars sequel trilogy. it’s more coherent than Disney’s. Pirates & Princesses. https://www.piratesandprincesses.net/ai-written-star-wars- sequel-trilogy/

SAG-AFTRA. (2023, March 17). AFTRA statement on the use of artificial intelligence and digital doubles in media and entertainment. SAG-AFTRA. https://www.sagaftra.org/sag-aftra-statement- use-artificial-intelligence-and-digital-doubles-media-and-entertainment

Shah, S. (2023, May 4). Why the WGA is striking for limits on the use of AI. Time. https://time.com/6277158/writers-strike-ai-wga-screenwriting/