As someone whose partner works as a writer in Hollywood — the strike’s AI-demands weren’t “resistance” to AI, as studios and certain circles were reporting.
It was a protection of payment: specifically, ensuring AI itself could not be given writing credit, nor could it be considered “source material”. These are important distinctions because if AI was considered a “writer” (and potentially thus a “showrunner”), then other human writers in the room could be paid as merely “writing assistants” to what is ultimately itself is supposed to be the assistant, like a tail wagging the dog. Furthermore, AI-generated scripts being unable to be classified as “source material” on their own means a studio can’t simply generate a very rough story outline, have writers actually make it a real story, and pay the writers much less because their work is considered an adaption rather than an original work. These are the same rules e.g. a Wikipedia article, or court case transcripts, etc fall under— they can be used as inspiration, but they don’t effect how much a writer gets paid.
Nowhere is AI usage actually prohibited, on both the studio and writer side of the equation.
Essentially, this would be like if Google announced everyone would be taking a 1-level pay cut because AI potentially makes them more efficient. That doesn’t make sense!
It was a protection of payment: specifically, ensuring AI itself could not be given writing credit, nor could it be considered “source material”. These are important distinctions because if AI was considered a “writer” (and potentially thus a “showrunner”), then other human writers in the room could be paid as merely “writing assistants” to what is ultimately itself is supposed to be the assistant, like a tail wagging the dog. Furthermore, AI-generated scripts being unable to be classified as “source material” on their own means a studio can’t simply generate a very rough story outline, have writers actually make it a real story, and pay the writers much less because their work is considered an adaption rather than an original work. These are the same rules e.g. a Wikipedia article, or court case transcripts, etc fall under— they can be used as inspiration, but they don’t effect how much a writer gets paid.
Nowhere is AI usage actually prohibited, on both the studio and writer side of the equation.
Essentially, this would be like if Google announced everyone would be taking a 1-level pay cut because AI potentially makes them more efficient. That doesn’t make sense!