Victory is Ours!

Good news: The SAG-AFTRA/WGA strikes are over!

*Cue Final Fantasy victory theme*

After months of trotting around and halting movie production, The AMPTP has caved to both unions and given them equitable deals. It was tough, and with so many productions either being halted or delayed, it felt like this’d go on forever. Thankfully, The AMPTP acquiesced. This is big for many reasons, and while I’m no expert, I’d like to discuss the overlapping concerns and why they were concerns at all. Specifically, I’d like to talk about AI. Here goes:

I’ve covered AI before, but many people don’t appreciate what the issue really is. AI’s a blanket term for programs that replicate pre-existing ideas and concepts. On some level, it makes sense: the human brain develops from learning and relearning, so why can’t machines? It’s a no-brainer that we’d develop similar technology, so what’s the big deal? I wish it were that simple.

For as much as copying’s essential to growth, AI doesn’t improve on what it’s copying. Artists respond to what’s out there, that’s what art is, but they also add their own flare. To use an example, Castle in the Sky’s a clear nod to pulpy action franchises like Star Wars and Indiana Jones, but Hayao Miyazaki wasn’t content with stopping there. He included his own politics and outlook on life too. So while campy, it’s not a rip-off.

If AI were to make a pulpy movie, assuming it’s capable of that, it’d take pre-existing movies and copy them with a new veneer. It wouldn’t create or respond in a new way because it’s not possible to. If you want proof, look at the “creations” proponents of the technology frequently tout. Not only do they look like blatant rip-offs, they’re also inferior copies.

That’s another issue with AI: it’s inauthentic. It’s a long-running joke that AI can’t replicate hands and feet properly, but I’d go further and state that it also can’t replicate genuine movement. Humans have traits that make them unique, including how they move and behave. This is especially true for people with disabilities, myself included. I have “motor tics” that manifest from Tourette’s Syndrome, and anything physical, right down to my speech, is impacted by them. If AI replicated that, it’d be clumsy and creepy.

This was a concern for both The WGA and SAG-AFTRA during their strikes. AI was a sticking point in negotiations with The AMPTP, as it was being implemented in the writing process and acting process. It didn’t help that AI was cheaper than the human touch, and with acting it didn’t age out of roles. An actor’s abilities are restricted by time, and that limits what they’re capable of with age. It’s why stunt actors and de-aging software are so big, especially when time is of the essence.

That’s what was at stake. On one hand, The AMPTP wanted a cheap and inferior imitation of writing and acting to save money and speed up filmmaking, at the expense of people and authenticity. On the other hand, the writers and actors in Hollywood wanted integrity respected and their jobs to remain. Hollywood work is largely freelance, and residuals help with sustainability in-between work. But with AI, suddenly that’s gone. Instead of being hired to write a script, a bot can do it for cheaper. And with acting, who’s to hire you again when you can be scanned digitally, often without consent, and replicated for future use?

That alone could initiate a strike. But what was more telling was how stubborn The AMPTP was. Instead of bargaining with both unions and meeting their demands, which wouldn’t cost them significantly anyway, they preferred dragging the strikes out and letting the unions cave. This included playing dirty at one point by pruning trees outside of Universal Studios without a license, making it harder to picket. Add in that The AMPTP was bleeding money, far more than they would’ve if they’d listened to demands, and it was clear that greed was holding back rationale.

Of course, rationale won out. It began with listening to The WGA, and it ended with listening to SAG-AFTRA. In both cases, AI was made a non-issue with it being optional and consensual on the part of writers and actors. The unions also got to decide if they wanted AI, how much they used and how much guiding control they had. That was what sealed the deal.

Truth be told, that was the right call. For as much as I rag on AI, such that I avoid it in my writing, I’m not against the technology. I’ve used Otter.ai for transcripts, particularly for an assignment last year where I captioned an old commercial. Even then, I had to make necessary changes so that the captioning flowed, including fixing typos and listening carefully to the audio for discrepancies. It was long and gruelling, but I had control.

And that’s really the best sort of compromise. I don’t think AI’s going away, and I’m sure it’ll improve over time. But if it’s staying, which it most-likely is, it’d be great if human hands could guide it. It’s not ready for independence, and it should complement humans instead of replacing them. It’s only fair.

So yes, I’m happy a deal was reached, as am I happy it was equitable. And while there are issues in Hollywood separate from the strikes that need resolving, I can rest easy knowing this ordeal has been resolved for now.