My experience in the entertainment field spans from my early childhood. At the age of eleven in 1977, I became a member of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), and at twenty-two, I joined the Writers Guild of America (WGA), followed by the Directors Guild of America (DGA) the following year. Beginning my career as a child actor on Broadway, I later pursued film studies at NYU, eventually acting in movies like The Lost Boys and the Bill & Ted franchise while also writing and directing my own narrative projects. Throughout the years, I have witnessed several labor crises and strikes, but none as significant as the recent work shutdown, which began last spring when all three unions had contracts up for renegotiation simultaneously, which the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) refused to agree upon.
The main issue that unifies labor is the devaluation of workers, which has escalated due to the rapid advancement of highly sophisticated and widely used Machine Learning Tools. Actors are being replaced by AI reproductions of their appearances, and their voices are being stolen. Writers have seen their work plagiarized by ChatGPT, and directors’ styles have been copied by MidJourney. The entire crew is at risk of being exploited by studios and Big Tech. Consequently, these concerns surrounding AI have become a significant focal point during this year’s strikes. The DGA reached an agreement with the AMPTP last summer, and now the WGA has struck an important deal of its own. Both agreements include terms that the unions hope will provide meaningful protection against exploitation by machine learning technology. However, considering the substantial investments studios have already made in this technology, it is doubtful that these deals alone will offer sufficient protection for artists.
The DGA’s contract asserts that AI is not a human being and cannot replace the work performed by its members. The WGA’s language, though more detailed, is fundamentally similar, stating that “AI cannot write or rewrite literary material, and any AI-generated content will not be considered as source material.” The contract also demands that studios must inform the writer if any materials given to them have been generated by AI or incorporate AI-generated content. Furthermore, the WGA contract asserts the union’s right to prohibit the exploitation of writers’ material to train AI.
However, studios are currently actively developing various applications for machine learning tools, both creative and administrative. Will these studios halt their development, knowing that their copyrighted work is vulnerable to machine learning tools over which they have no control? Can the government enforce limits on Big Tech when these companies are aware that China and other global entities will continue advancing these technologies? These questions bring up the issue of proof.
It is difficult to imagine that the studios will disclose the truth when asked to dismantle their AI initiatives, especially considering that attribution is nearly impossible to prove with machine learning outputs. Additionally, it is challenging to prevent these tools from learning on any data that studios desire. Corporations often act first and seek forgiveness later, and it should be assumed that they will continue to collect and utilize any accessible data, which includes all available data. While the studios may offer some protections for highly esteemed top earners, it is evident that these artists are primarily white and male, comprising only a fraction of the union membership. Consequently, there will be minimal to no protection for women, people of color, LGBTQIA+ individuals, and other marginalized groups, mirroring the situation across all sectors of the labor force. I do not aim to criticize the efforts of the DGA and WGA in formulating terms that may not fully encompass the extent of this technology. However, there is room to go further, and SAG has the opportunity to do so in its ongoing negotiations.
SAG is currently on strike and plans to meet with the AMPTP next Monday. I hope that in this meeting, they can propose even more specific and protective language.
It would be beneficial to include terminology that acknowledges the studios’ inevitable use of AI, regardless of any contractual terms imposed upon them. This agreement should also recognize that studios are threatened by the insatiable desires of Big Tech, just like the artists. The unions and the AMPTP find themselves sitting on opposite sides of the same life raft. Therefore, contractual language that acknowledges mutual needs will serve the interests of all parties involved. It would also be advantageous to address the issue of AI’s inherent biases, which reflect the biases prevalent within society. We must all make a commitment to utilize these technologies while considering these realities and concerns.
Above all else, I hope that everyone involved takes the time to understand how these technologies operate, their capabilities, and limitations. It is essential to become active participants in an industrial revolution that, like any human creation, can yield tremendous benefits but also inflict significant harm. The term “Luddite” is often misused to describe a weary and resentful population hoping for technology to disappear. However, the true Luddites were deeply engaged with technology and adept at incorporating it into their work within the textile industry. They were not an anti-technology movement but rather a labor movement, fighting against the exploitation and devaluation of their work by greedy company leaders. If we wish to address the challenges posed by AI and other technologies, we must genuinely and wholeheartedly engage with them. Let us all become Luddites.
WIRED Opinion features articles from external contributors who represent a wide range of perspectives. Read more opinions here. Submit an op-ed at [email protected].
