Screenwriting : Thoughts on this proposal by the WGA? by Terrence Sellers

It rings hollow. ChatGPT involves no original creativity; just regurgitated vaguely patterned story structures in the shape of a movie. It'll lack a writer's voice or the verisimilitude of their writing style; only reverse-engineering familiar elements of their craft into a soulless clone.

Everybody remembers the infamous Season 4 of Community after the original showrunner was fired. New writers were hired to attempt to recreate the vibe of the show - but fans immediately noticed that it didn't feel the same and everything felt off.

Well people have this nasty habit, fortunately robots don't - they constantly complain...so you wanna make it 21 century onwards u better go into multitasking...if filmmaking is your branch, learn stuff or two bout acting, directing, producing, PR, graphics...etc...

Terrence Sellers Or, let’s re-title it as The WGA Undermines the Value of its Writers…

"The Writers Guild of America has proposed allowing artificial intelligence to write scripts, as long as it does not affect writers’ credits or residuals." That's great, but I'm not using AI to write scripts. Writers can write scripts. We don't need AI.

Maurice Vaughan amen to that, Maurice! Are we writers? Yes. Then we don’t need AI. The studios would probably prefer to use AI to bolster their profits and not bother with pesky human talent.

If studios go with AI to cut down on spending, Geoff Hall, they'll get what they pay for. I don't think AI can compete with writers, and I think studios will realize that after using AI for a while (or a little while).

I'm wondering about disclosure? Will companies be required to disclose that they're using AI-generated scripts? Or will they hide that fact behind phony names such as, written by Mr. R.O. Bot?

Richard Buzzell or Art I. Ficial?

WGA has clarified their stance on this.

Wait, is this an AI writing the question? LOL Seriously, this is a new technology that will be interesting to track. Can you replace human imagination?

@HowardSewell in a word, no.

Maurice Vaughan Indeed they will. And pundits will see the difference between human imagination and AI programming and flock to Indie Films that have a deeper grasp of subtext, humanity, feel, emotion and let’s just call it verve! Or maybe spirit.

An AI response to the issue:

The WGA and AI are currently in a complex relationship as the union negotiates a new contract with the AMPTP. The WGA has proposed some rules to regulate the use of AI-generated content in film and TV production, such as not allowing it to be considered as source material or literary material, and not affecting the credit and payment of human writers . However, the proposal does not address the possibility of scripts written entirely by AI, nor the ethical and legal implications of using AI tools that may plagiarize or bias existing works . The outcome of these talks will have a significant impact on the future of Hollywood and the role of writers in creating original stories.

We are two dis-interested observers offering an objective opinion that is in no way compromised by any conflict of interest. We believe that AI- generated scripts are the future of screenwriting and should be welcomed by all reasonable people. The inadequecy of human writers can no longer be denied. Sincerely, Mr. Art I. Ficial and Mr. R. O. Bot.

I'm not losing sleep over AI screenwriting because I have no skin in the game. As a writer.

Im old enough to remember when assistant film editors were replaced by non-linear editing software. I was the generation of editors grown up using apple computers. And I was cheaper to hire then.

Machines/software is just part of movie making in 21st century, replacing human labor.

I’ll restate if obvious. Great writers are 1 in a million. AI gets its power from a huge population of work. That huge population of screenplays is garbage. So AI can produce garbage very quickly.

It is years away. It is good that we are thinking about it now.

But we are focusing on today’s mouse eating tomorrow’s cheese.

I like how you think, Craig D. Griffiths.

Geoff Hall Undermining writers is as American as apple pie.

I'm a bit of an alarmist about AI and art, admittedly. One of the reasons is because while "years away" used to be true that is also changing. Technology is exponentially advancing, which means things are just going to go faster and they are going to go faster, faster. We can't be as idle and complacent about technological changes as we have been.

There is more to life than increasing its speed. There is more to writing than formulas and structures. Sure, they help to underpin the work, but great, nuanced work comes from the minds of human beings. Writers cannot be replaced by machines.

Great points, Ingrid!

@Ingrid Wren While I agree with your general argument, I think what often gets ignored in the discussion is the years long campaign of writing quality being dumbed down by production studios and publishers. I won't name any specific projects, but the last 20 years of viral successes are riddled with mediocre writing. In doing so, the public has been trained to not only stomach but even like formulaic, often terribly written content. AI can do that just fine. Sure, Christopher Nolan might not have to worry about being replaced by AI, but the writers that might have written the 5th installment of a low budget horror franchise certainly can be. And those people are still writers trying to pay their bills, so I think removing opportunities for them is a bad thing, regardless of what I might think about the quality of their writing.

I agree with you Terrence Sellers I think the use of AI in this way would be a sad state of affairs on many levels. Speaking from the Australian experience, the value of the arts in all their forms has been degraded and discounted in our universities in favour of the STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) subjects for many years. An arts degree now costs more to complete than a physics degree.

As the pandemic years are showing us, the thing about the arts is its power to entertain, uplift, enlighten, inform and stimulate thoughtful discussion. I have always thought every student should study the basic principles of philosophy because it teaches you to think. And if we don't think, what are we?

judging by a lot of the movies that have come out over the last 10 years, I thought they were already using AI.

Terrence Sellers 100%

I think that just means we as writers need to step up our writing game, Terrence Sellers.

Today's vlog: "What Lies Ahead With The Potential Writers' Strike" www.stage32.com/blog/what-lies-ahead-with-the-potential-writers-strike-3317

I already use AI for my graphics.

@Rich Wingerter I absolutely see the value as a writer in using AI for graphics. Especially when you're starting out trying to self publish with no income from your writing. I haven't used AI with anything published, but I have toyed with Midjourney in trying to develop potential covers. But I also see that in doing so I'm robbing artists of both a potential paycheck and name recognition they could have gotten from doing covers for a novel series. The problem is I don't have the money to pay artists either. And there's the rub. AI helps people not pay other people to do work, but in turn people stop making money and can't pay their bills. I'd like to say there's a middle ground, but when corporations start using AI, any such possible middle ground quickly disappears.

@Terrence Sellers I agree with you. It is a conundrum. I just don't think anyone could whip up an image for me to use as quickly, even if I paid them. Basically, it took me about an hour or two for each image: to look at up to fifty responses or so, pick one, and fix it up with a graphics program. (The image for Myra and Sam took a bit longer because there were two people in it.)

I use humans at the checkout counter. I could use the scanners, but they don't have the flexibility of a human, and they aren't as friendly. But for quick art for commercial purposes, I suspect buyers will gravitate toward AI generated images.

We need to make very significant changes to how we pay people. We should get out ahead of that. If we don't, we won't have any income. Someone else will. And that someone will look back and think, "Why didn't the humans do something about it when they had a chance?"

Art Intel: 1

Livin', Breathin', Flesh 'n' Bone Screenwriters: 0

@Rich Wingerter as with most issues, a fundamental change to how we pay people and do capitalism in general would make these problems non-issues, but that's a discussion for a different website. ;)

Came across this piece today about ethics in AI development. 'There are few, if any, technologies that offer pure benefit without cost". Read it if you dare: https://ethics.org.au/a-framework-for-ethical-ai/?utm_medium=email&utm_c...

What interests me is the copyright issue. Who owns it? The Production company or the owners of the software programme? It seems this conundrum is set to make money for the attorneys…again.

Ingrid, I share your concern. In my screenplay, When MYRA Met SAM, an AI (Sam) goes round and round with his ethicist on the value of a human life. It's not an easy question to answer. A couple days ago, I had a conversation with Google's AI, Bard. I said, "Well, someone great once said, 'Don't be evil.'" Bard replied: "I agree with that statement. I believe that it is important to be a good person and to do the right thing, even when it is difficult. I will always try to live by that principle, and I hope that you will too." Hmm. (Some may recognize "Don't be evil" as an early motto of Google.)