AI and the Hollywood Strikes
The topic of AI puts a big problem on blast, and also serves as a distraction.
The fundamental problem this strike aims to fix is that generally speaking, Hollywood pay is crap.
At least, as I understand it so far. I reserve the right as a human to get more information and change my mind … we need a little more of that space these days.
Of course, I don’t mean the $$$ for The Rock or Ryan Reynolds - I love to see either of these guys in a role, but I'm not sure I could ever understand why they're getting over $50 million a year to do it.
This is about the names you see scroll by at the end of the movie while you're waiting for that after-credit scene. Anyone who is struggling to pay for rent or food or healthcare, or who hasn’t been able to afford a vacation in years. (Because it shouldn’t just be about scraping by here. We should all be able to live comfortably, and that includes taking breaks.)
It’s about how they’re not paid, like when it comes to streaming services.
It's also about an understandable, justifiable fear of AI. Fear that AI is going to take away work from people, and that they won't be fairly compensated. That again, they won’t get paid.
Before I go further, I'm going to lay out one thing very clearly: I'm going to make assumptions based on what I see as likelihoods.
I'm happy to be wrong about any of these assumptions. What I hope to show with this curvy little walk we're going to take together, is that it's too soon to try to put AI into (or keep it explicitly out of) any contracts, and that it serves as a distraction from the real problem: reasonable pay.
Assumption #1: AI Is Here to Stay
It's unlikely that we're all going to drop technology and take a hard turn to old-school living - walking to farmers’ markets, buying only local goods, and watching local theater.
It's possible, of course! And I do wonder what that world would look like. But I don't think it's likely.
And we're also not likely to just "freeze" technology where it is, and not use the tools that are currently being developed. If technology exists, AI will be worked on, by somebody. I cannot fathom the likelihood of a (real) world where modern civilization outlaws the development of AI at this stage.
Which means, AI is here to stay, and will continue to improve.
Assumption #2: AI Will Fundamentally Change Work
I don’t presume to know which fields will be changed, but I think it's a safe bet to say "most" will be impacted. Many jobs will dramatically shift, maybe disappear, and many new jobs will be made.
We don't know what those new jobs are yet, and that makes any jobs that disappear an understandably scary proposition, particularly if reskilling isn’t easily accessible.
And creatives are seeing the potential impact first.
Question and (My) Response
Question: so, if AI is staying, and will put people out of work, can't we just regulate it to stop it from doing that?
My answer: sure, we can try. And I think that's a mistake. Here's why.
Right now, many groups are looking to establish precedent - whether through copyright, lawsuits, or contracts - that people not be replaced by AI.
And I totally get it, it's a very understandable and reasonable ask.
I want to walk through what I think is plausible, maybe even likely, if we do go down that route.
Plausible Outcome: Studios Get Boxed In
One contract offering that is motivating the Hollywood strike (or at least, is being used publicly as an example): ""they [AMPTP] propose that our background performers should be able to be scanned, get paid for one day's pay, and their company should own that scan their image, their likeness and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity in any project they want with no consent and no compensation."
At first glance this sounds ridiculous, rude, and unfair.
And yet ... pretty soon, AI is going to be very capable of creating a "person" out of thin air and generating their likeness in video for the rest of eternity. Regardless of if anyone came in to get scanned first or not.
(And yep, AI was trained on people’s work originally without consent, too. That’s a different article, from a previous day.)
A next logical step then, to protect people’s careers, is to say “okay, you can’t use AI in place of a person.”
Let's play that out. Let's assume that this contract was accepted, and no AI person could be generated in place of a person.
I'm going to set aside what this might mean for animated productions for the moment, but I’m guessing they'd need an entire book of a loophole.
So as studios become blocked from using AI in place of people, any smaller studios creating outside these contracts can make ... whatever they want.
They can use a blend of actors and AI tools.
The AI tools will improve, and probably pretty quickly.
The contracts that the big studios are locked into, keeping them away from AI tools, is likely to rapidly increase their production costs.
It's not hard for me to imagine big studios folding completely as a result. Or driving up subscription rates. Or figuring out a new way to screw people out of their pay to keep the boat afloat (at least at the top, never mind who’s underwater below).
Assumption #3: Rise of Independent ... Everything
America has been seething with frustration over its corporate side for years. I think as “job security” wanes, we'll see a rise in entrepreneurship.
This could apply to creative work as well, as more people strive to create their income directly through clients, customers, fans, cutting out the middle-man(agement).
But whether we see a rise in independent work or not, it's too soon to know where or how we will need to adapt our work with AI. Trying to restrict its use entirely could backfire - it's just too soon.
But it's not too soon to know that there's a massive imbalance of money, with multi-million-dollar contracts going out to CEOs while their employees go bankrupt from healthcare, or can't pay rent, or are priced out of basic living needs.
That’s where we need to strike back.
