WGA/SAGAFTRA Strike Discussion Thread | SAG Ratifies Contract

[Water Bottle]

7 minutes ago, Hildagarde25 said:

Curious: How will this affect the news, sports, and other broadcasting? I know some broadcasters are part of SAG-AFTRA, so does that mean no more news or commentators for sports, either, as examples? 

 

I'm pretty sure those are probably different deals.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

3 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

But what studios will want to do is have the AI write the script, bring in a writer to edit it, and then pay the writer way less because they are editing, not writing.

So this should be the talking point. AI is here, it's being used, and it's only going to continue being used. The WGA need to figure out how to get the most compensation from this scenario.

 

Instead of saying "no AI" they need to be thinking "if studios use AI, they still need to have writers on staff who get paid fairly." Any writer whose scripts are used to train AI must get royalties, or some shit like that. That needs to be the angle, because "No AI" is not going to work. It just isn't.

 

Because at the end of the day, AI regurgitates old ideas. Sure, Studios can use AI for a while, but it won't innovate. The only way it can innovate is if there are humans writing and rewriting and rewriting prompts, and the WGA needs to be looking out for new jobs like that.

[Hildagarde25]

2 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

I'm pretty sure those are probably different deals.

 

So even though they're part of the same organization, they would have different contracts? Just trying to figure it all out! Thanks!

[eddyxx]

3 hours ago, Mulder said:

Technically no. It's complicated. A lot of animation writers are also in the WGA, but animation writing is handled by The Animators Guild instead-

https://www.cartoonbrew.com/artist-rights/wga-writers-strike-the-animation-guild-228670.html

 

EDIT: To clarify more, some shows fall under it and the majority don't. That article there outlines the shows which are covered by the WGA.

Wow I just assumed all writers for tv were in the WGA.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

6 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

"They need to focus on their own members" "this isn't in the WGA purview" okay make up your mind cause a significant portion of writers on those websites ARE WGA members.

I thought WGA only covered TV and film writing. I truly don't understand what's under their purview then, shit...

[MysteryMovieMogul]

11 minutes ago, grim22 said:

 

The AI is an important issue. Because writers get a much lower rate for rewrites and don't get residuals from rewrites as well 

 

So if AI writes an initial draft and then it's handed to a writer, that's money they are never seeing.

Then the WGA needs to be fighting for higher rates for rewrites and residuals from rewrites instead of trying to limit AI, because limiting AI is just not going to happen. And it'll only get messier when a writer or two starts using AI themselves in private and gets found out. Should they be kicked out of the WGA for using AI to write a script? That gets sticky. Personally, if the WGA doesn't want AI to be used by studios, I think it should be banned for use by members of the WGA, too.

[Plain Old Tele]

3 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

So this should be the talking point. AI is here, it's being used, and it's only going to continue being used. The WGA need to figure out how to get the most compensation from this scenario.

 

Instead of saying "no AI" they need to be thinking "if studios use AI, they still need to have writers on staff who get paid fairly." Any writer whose scripts are used to train AI must get royalties, or some shit like that. That needs to be the angle, because "No AI" is not going to work. It just isn't.

 

Because at the end of the day, AI regurgitates old ideas. Sure, Studios can use AI for a while, but it won't innovate. The only way it can innovate is if there are humans writing and rewriting and rewriting prompts, and the WGA needs to be looking out for new jobs like that.

Simple question: why does AI *need* to be used? The only people who claim it’s vital and not going away and it’s important to use in creative endeavors are, almost to a person, people who AREN’T in those creative fields.

 

I fully support David Simon’s position: if a writer feels it helps their process at some point or whatever (dubious shrug but sure), then fine, but it has to be 100% in the control of that one individual writer. 

[Ryan Reynolds]

this is all very bad, productions hire 100s if not 1000s all out of work for the foreseeable future

[eddyxx]

3 hours ago, Coneilg93 said:

 

🙄 making this comment after getting that big money contract extension lol

 

 

[Water Bottle]

2 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

Simple question: why does AI *need* to be used? The only people who claim it’s vital and not going away and it’s important to use in creative endeavors are, almost to a person, people who AREN’T in those creative fields.

 

I fully support David Simon’s position: if a writer feels it helps their process at some point or whatever (dubious shrug but sure), then fine, but it has to be 100% in the control of that one individual writer. 

 

I like this notion that AI is here to stay and being used when:

 

A) Hollywood isn't using AI to write scripts right now. 

2) WGA can add a no AI provision to their contract with the AMPTP.

3) Meaning the studios CAN'T use AI.

 

AI won't go away. But we can limit where it CAN be used. WGA CAN tell studios they can't use AI to originate scripts and then hire WGA writers to edit them. Just cause the technology is there doesn't mean it has to be used lol. 

 

"Make it so any writer whose script is used to train AI gets royalties" would also be an effective way to kill AI though if you properly implemented it (studios would of course deny any script was used to train AI to get out of paying that writer royalties). Because if studios DID pay every writer royalties used to train AI, they would pay so much to use AI that it'd be cheaper and more effective to just NOT use AI ever. 

[MCKillswitch123]

8 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

Then the WGA needs to be fighting for higher rates for rewrites and residuals from rewrites instead of trying to limit AI, because limiting AI is just not going to happen. And it'll only get messier when a writer or two starts using AI themselves in private and gets found out. Should they be kicked out of the WGA for using AI to write a script? That gets sticky. Personally, if the WGA doesn't want AI to be used by studios, I think it should be banned for use by members of the WGA, too.

 

I think you're getting caught in dumb details here. I doubt AI would not be used as a tool to by anyone ever develop, but it should be at the discretion of that specific writer. 

 

It's pretty obvious why the WGA would fight for a ban on studio use of AI, which would emphasis replacing human labor (aka higher expenses) as much as possible. Whether AI is banned completely or used as a tool by writers is beside the point - the only thing in question is for it not to replace artists' jobs. Hell, is AI really any helpful in creative work?

 

I know it's cool to dream of a future where work is automated and all, but artistic work should NEVER be replaced by machines. Flat out.

Edited July 13, 2023 by MCKillswitch123

[DAR]

I have no issues with AI being used in the medical fields or agricultural fields with human input.  But in the creative fields less so.

Edited July 13, 2023 by DAR

[MysteryMovieMogul]

20 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

I fully support David Simon’s position: if a writer feels it helps their process at some point or whatever (dubious shrug but sure), then fine, but it has to be 100% in the control of that one individual writer. 

I disagree with this. If AI is bad, writers shouldn't be allowed to use it either. 

[MysteryMovieMogul]

15 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

 

I think you're getting caught in dumb details here. I doubt AI would not be used as a tool to by anyone ever develop, but it should be at the discretion of that specific writer. 

 

It's pretty obvious why the WGA would fight for a ban on studio use of AI, which would emphasis replacing human labor (aka higher expenses) as much as possible. Whether AI is banned completely or used as a tool by writers is beside the point - the only thing in question is for it not to replace artists' jobs. Hell, is AI really any helpful in creative work?

 

I know it's cool to dream of a future where work is automated and all, but artistic work should NEVER be replaced by machines. Flat out.

 

I agree with this, but writers like David Simon seem to think it's not okay for Studios to use AI but it's okay for writers to use it. So, it's okay for writers to exploit other writers, but not studios? Why the double standard? Either ban AI for everyone or no one. No weird in-between that gives writers leeway to exploit AI themselves.

[MCKillswitch123]

2 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

 

I agree with this, but writers like David Simon seem to think it's not okay for Studios to use AI but it's okay for writers to use it. So, it's okay for writers to exploit other writers, but not studios? Why the double standard? Either ban AI for everyone or no one. No weird in-between that gives writers leeway to exploit AI themselves.

 

...again, a writer should be able to decide whether or not AI is helpful for them as long as THEY are in charge. A studio is not interested in using AI as a tool, they're interested in using AI as a replacement to human labor. Why is that "exploitation" / "double standard" and why are you actively antagonizing people with something that should be simple to understand?

Edited July 13, 2023 by MCKillswitch123

[MysteryMovieMogul]

To clarify my position. If the WGA wants to ban studios from using AI, the WGA needs to place an AI ban on their own members, too. It's not like writers are using an AI that only trains off their own scripts. I don't like exploitation of writers by any force, be it executives at Warner Brothers and Disney or by an individual writer of a network series.

But the WGA only wants to ban Studios from using AI, and that is a gross double standard. 

[Water Bottle]

1 minute ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

 

I agree with this, but writers like David Simon seem to think it's not okay for Studios to use AI but it's okay for writers to use it. So, it's okay for writers to exploit other writers, but not studios? Why the double standard? Either ban AI for everyone or no one. No weird in-between that gives writers leeway to exploit AI themselves.

 

Hi. Non-union writer here. If I were to use AI it would be to come up with names, proofreading. I could also use AI to look up information (basically use it as a research bot or as a google) such as when things happened or slang of the era or how a real life person died. These are all rather small things that I could do that could help me.

 

I wouldn't use AI to actually write the script or any part of the script. That's the key difference: I would actually use it as a tool. Studios would want to use AI in a very different way: they would try to replace me as much as possible with AI. 

 

The ONLY part of the script I could see the AI directly helping write is background dialog. Even then, I wouldn't do it myself. But if another writer was like yeah I'll have the AI write this news blurb that you maybe hear in the background before editing it myself, I wouldn't care. But I wouldn't want the studio to be the one to make that decision.

[MCKillswitch123]

2 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

To clarify my position. If the WGA wants to ban studios from using AI, the WGA needs to place an AI ban on their own members, too. It's not like writers are using an AI that only trains off their own scripts. I don't like exploitation of writers by any force, be it executives at Warner Brothers and Disney or by an individual writer of a network series.

But the WGA only wants to ban Studios from using AI, and that is a gross double standard. 

 

....but why? Are we supposed to feel sorry for studios because a strike wouldn't let them use AI for shady reasons?

 

Once again: writers should be able to decide whether AI can help them, but it's THEIR work. Studios are not interested in using AI to help their employees, rather they're interested in using AI to *replace* their employees. It's not a double standard to call that out.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

3 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

 

...again, a writer should be able to decide whether or not AI is helpful for them as long as THEY are in charge. A studio is not interested in using AI as a tool, they're interested in using AI as a replacement to human labor. Why is that "exploitation" / "double standard" and why are you actively antagonizing people with something that should be simple to understand?

And once again, I disagree. I feel more comfortable reading an AI article that is credited to AI than reading an article with a human byline that was written with the help of AI, because at least the former discloses the fact that AI was used. I mean, I don't like the former either, to be clear.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

See, this is now getting into dicey AI talk. I want to know if a writer or artist uses AI. I want it fully disclosed, no matter if it's used for a Studio film or by a YouTuber I enjoy. I want AI transparency by all parties, not just by studios.