From an interesting blog post about the current writers strike (which explains the issues very clearly), comes this part about AI:

https://thecontinentalcongress.substack.com/p/and-the-strike-dragged-on

The confusion over the WGA A.I. fight is best described by
a question I got on Twitter... "is the WGA actually worried
that they will be replaced by A.I.?"

The answer is... sort of.

And whether or not you agree depends on whether you think
it's a short-term problem or a long-term one.

In the short-term, I believe the answer is no, with a but.

There is some concern in the short-term that some of the
writing steps that are currently done by humans, and which
generate significant fees, could be taken over by A.I.

Imagine a long-running formulaic show like a police procedural
that has been airing 22 episodes every season for ten years.
It is possible that for a show like this, the Network might
be able to put all of the previous episodes into an AI
program and ask the system to generate new scripts featuring
ripped from the front page crime stories. And then even if
the scripts are bad, a room with just a couple of human
writers in it could revise those scripts and get them into
production shape without the need for a full-sized room of
ten or more writers.

There are similar fears on the feature film side.

Remember when I pointed out that the treatment step has
become a rarity in feature writer deals? Well, there is a
concern that A.I. could make them disappear completely. The
idea is that Studios could feed basic prompts into a machine
and produce a treatment that hits all the basic plot and
characters points of the movie they want to make, even if
the resulting document would feature none of the artistry
typically associated with screenwriting.

From an interesting blog post about the current writers strike (which >explains the issues very clearly), comes this part about AI:

https://thecontinentalcongress.substack.com/p/and-the-strike-dragged-on

The confusion over the WGA A.I. fight is best described by
a question I got on Twitter... "is the WGA actually worried
that they will be replaced by A.I.?"

The answer is... sort of.

And whether or not you agree depends on whether you think
it's a short-term problem or a long-term one.

In the short-term, I believe the answer is no, with a but.

There is some concern in the short-term that some of the
writing steps that are currently done by humans, and which
generate significant fees, could be taken over by A.I.

Imagine a long-running formulaic show like a police procedural
that has been airing 22 episodes every season for ten years.
It is possible that for a show like this, the Network might
be able to put all of the previous episodes into an AI
program and ask the system to generate new scripts featuring
ripped from the front page crime stories. And then even if
the scripts are bad, a room with just a couple of human
writers in it could revise those scripts and get them into
production shape without the need for a full-sized room of
ten or more writers.

There are similar fears on the feature film side.

Remember when I pointed out that the treatment step has
become a rarity in feature writer deals? Well, there is a
concern that A.I. could make them disappear completely. The
idea is that Studios could feed basic prompts into a machine
and produce a treatment that hits all the basic plot and
characters points of the movie they want to make, even if
the resulting document would feature none of the artistry
typically associated with screenwriting.

From an interesting blog post about the current writers strike (which explains the issues very clearly), comes this part about AI:

https://thecontinentalcongress.substack.com/p/and-the-strike-dragged-on

The confusion over the WGA A.I. fight is best described by
a question I got on Twitter... "is the WGA actually worried
that they will be replaced by A.I.?" [snip]

From an interesting blog post about the current writers strike (which explains the issues very clearly), comes this part about AI:

https://thecontinentalcongress.substack.com/p/and-the-strike-dragged-on

The confusion over the WGA A.I. fight is best described by
a question I got on Twitter... "is the WGA actually worried
that they will be replaced by A.I.?"

The answer is... sort of.

And whether or not you agree depends on whether you think
it's a short-term problem or a long-term one.

In the short-term, I believe the answer is no, with a but.

There is some concern in the short-term that some of the
writing steps that are currently done by humans, and which
generate significant fees, could be taken over by A.I.

Imagine a long-running formulaic show like a police procedural
that has been airing 22 episodes every season for ten years.
It is possible that for a show like this, the Network might
be able to put all of the previous episodes into an AI
program and ask the system to generate new scripts featuring
ripped from the front page crime stories. And then even if
the scripts are bad, a room with just a couple of human
writers in it could revise those scripts and get them into
production shape without the need for a full-sized room of
ten or more writers.

There are similar fears on the feature film side.

Remember when I pointed out that the treatment step has
become a rarity in feature writer deals? Well, there is a
concern that A.I. could make them disappear completely. The
idea is that Studios could feed basic prompts into a machine
and produce a treatment that hits all the basic plot and
characters points of the movie they want to make, even if
the resulting document would feature none of the artistry
typically associated with screenwriting.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 9 Aug 2023 03:13:56 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:

From an interesting blog post about the current writers strike (which >explains the issues very clearly), comes this part about AI:

https://thecontinentalcongress.substack.com/p/and-the-strike-dragged-on

The confusion over the WGA A.I. fight is best described by
a question I got on Twitter... "is the WGA actually worried
that they will be replaced by A.I.?"

The answer is... sort of.

And whether or not you agree depends on whether you think
it's a short-term problem or a long-term one.

In the short-term, I believe the answer is no, with a but.

There is some concern in the short-term that some of the
writing steps that are currently done by humans, and which
generate significant fees, could be taken over by A.I.

Imagine a long-running formulaic show like a police procedural
that has been airing 22 episodes every season for ten years.
It is possible that for a show like this, the Network might
be able to put all of the previous episodes into an AI
program and ask the system to generate new scripts featuring
ripped from the front page crime stories. And then even if
the scripts are bad, a room with just a couple of human
writers in it could revise those scripts and get them into
production shape without the need for a full-sized room of
ten or more writers.

There are similar fears on the feature film side.

Remember when I pointed out that the treatment step has
become a rarity in feature writer deals? Well, there is a
concern that A.I. could make them disappear completely. The
idea is that Studios could feed basic prompts into a machine
and produce a treatment that hits all the basic plot and
characters points of the movie they want to make, even if
the resulting document would feature none of the artistry
typically associated with screenwriting.

Sounds like something the buggy-whip makers might have come up with
(with appropriate alterations) when the automobile began being a
serious threat to equine transportation.

But just keep trying to hold back progress (or, at least, change),
guys. It's never worked in the long run before, but don't let that
stop you.

And I thought the whole "threat to education" was based on the idea
that the AIs could generate text as well as students could.