Hollywood Studios Can Train AI Models on Writers' Work Under Tentative Deal (wsj.com) 37
Hollywood studios are expected to retain the right to train artificial-intelligence models based on writers' work under the terms of a tentative labor agreement between the two sides, WSJ reported, citing people familiar with the situation. From the report: The writers would also walk away with an important win, a guarantee that they will receive credit and compensation for work they do on scripts, even if studios partially rely on AI tools, one of the people said. That provision had been in an earlier offer from the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, the group representing studios, streamers and networks. The Writers Guild of America said Sunday it had reached a tentative agreement with the AMPTP to end a nearly five-month strike. Neither side has released the details of the agreement. The WGA said it plans to release the terms once its leadership votes on the deal, which could happen as soon as Tuesday.
The two sides have battled over issues ranging from wage increases to whether writers' rooms should have minimum staffing requirements. The use of generative AI by studios became a major issue, as advanced versions of the technology -- such as OpenAI's ChatGPT -- were released for public use over the past year. AI bots, which provide sophisticated, humanlike responses to user questions, are "trained" on large amounts of data. Entertainment executives didn't want to relinquish the right to train their own AI tools based on TV and movie scripts, since their understanding is that AI tech platforms already are training their own models on such materials, people familiar with the matter said.
The two sides have battled over issues ranging from wage increases to whether writers' rooms should have minimum staffing requirements. The use of generative AI by studios became a major issue, as advanced versions of the technology -- such as OpenAI's ChatGPT -- were released for public use over the past year. AI bots, which provide sophisticated, humanlike responses to user questions, are "trained" on large amounts of data. Entertainment executives didn't want to relinquish the right to train their own AI tools based on TV and movie scripts, since their understanding is that AI tech platforms already are training their own models on such materials, people familiar with the matter said.
It's a trap! (Score:3)
I can't read the article since it is account-locked but of course that won't stop me from commenting on it!
The wording in the summary sure sounds like a trap. Writers get paid when studios partially rely on AI to write the scripts. Well, what happens when studios "partially" rely on AI to write 90% of the script, and one lone writer finishes it out? Do all the writers that had their prior scripts used to train the AI get compensated? From this wording, it sounds like "no" and only that one guy gets compensated.
That isn't a win at all, its a hornswoggle!
Re: (Score:3)
I was able to find the full article elsewhere, but it doesn't have much details just yet. It seems like it means that if an AI model is trained on a writer's work, that writer would get partial writing credits for it. Presumably any humans working on it would get it too, but it ought to prevent a studio from doing something like, say, training an AI on all past Tarantino scripts and then using it to produce a Tarantino-esque script without credit or compensation. That's the way I interpreted it anyway.
Wheth
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's my understanding, or at least what the big fear was. If a studio used AI for the majority of initial work trained on writings of big-name (read: expensive) screenwriters and then used cheap staff writers to clean it up and tweak things where needed, and then didn't have to credit the original screenwriters who made the content the AI was trained on, there were questions over copyright and ownership and credits.
I'm not going to get into the arguments about the state and quality of modern screenwriting
Re: (Score:2)
I can't read the article since it is account-locked but of course that won't stop me from commenting on it!
The wording in the summary sure sounds like a trap. Writers get paid when studios partially rely on AI to write the scripts. Well, what happens when studios "partially" rely on AI to write 90% of the script, and one lone writer finishes it out? Do all the writers that had their prior scripts used to train the AI get compensated? From this wording, it sounds like "no" and only that one guy gets compensated.
That isn't a win at all, its a hornswoggle!
You are describing the current creative environment with or without unions and the environment they are fighting to maintain. The lone writer who is the "due payer" historically gets the credit. It doesn't matter how many talented people helped. That is what all the previous strikes were about limiting the role of the upper offices in the private, professional creative process. Ironically it was the very same mid to low level workers who were supposed to be excluded from getting credit previously that made
Re: (Score:2)
Agree it should be no matter how much the AI is writing the script if it used any of the writers work / actors work or anyone else each of them get full compensation Each time. That is the only acceptable path forward.
The Rich want to keep getting richer while they piss on everyone else, trickle down style
How about (Score:3)
Re:How about (Score:4, Interesting)
If the mass market was interested in creativity and original ideas it wouldn't be blindly swallowing up every "cinematic universe" the industry is currently beating to death, from Game of Thrones to the MCU to Star Wars to Star Trek to Yellowstone. The bar for original entertainment continues to lower but studio execs got no reason to change as long as people continue to consume it. I have friends in the WGA and feel genuinely bad for them, they're getting screwed on both ends, and the long term future is pretty fucking bleek. ChatGPT can write a passable script for any one of those "universes" right now. It's not as good as the work done by a human but put some pretty SFX on it and people will line up at the trough to consume it. :(
The only real hope for creatives and consumers is for enshittification to drive people away from the streaming platforms and force the industry to reconsider its direction. Color me skeptical that's gonna happen, people will bitch and moan, and continue to pay, just like they did with cable of yesteryear.
Hell, it ain't just streaming, go look at the success of Barbie. If you've seen it, it had little to do with the fact that it was a movie about toys, it was a genuinely good/amusing movie, but good luck telling the money guys [popsugar.com] that.
Re: (Score:2)
at the end of the day that is the real problem here. The WGA people want top dollar for in a lot of cases doing the type of work LLMs really can excel at.
A show runner working on a highly established property lays out some broad plot points they want to hit and the writer or LLM fills in the blanks with dialog that aligns to the characters and some stage direction.
They want to claim this is some form of high art but it just isnt, and high art isn't what the studios want and its mostly not what the public w
Re:How about (Score:4, Interesting)
You realize "top dollar" is around 60-80K a year right? And this is living in LA, a fairly expensive place to live.
"Top Dollar" on a $400M film for writing is around $150k - for the entire job.
Writers are typically paid per output - so $60-80K is a whole season's wroth of scripts, while $150K is for a movie script which can demand a year and a half or two years of work.
Working on multiple scripts is extremely rare, and when you're between jobs, you aren't getting paid. So that $150K writer likely made average $75k for the couple of years they're on the project plus dead time while they pursue other writing jobs.
The only "rich" people getting millions of dollars in Hollywood are the names on the top of the movie poster and the studio executives. Everyone else is making above-average wages because LA is an expensive place to live. And it's not generally a job that can be done remotely, either.
Re: (Score:2)
and when you're between jobs, you aren't getting paid
They're SUPPOSED to get paid non-zero dollars from residuals but that's one of the things the streaming industry upset. Previously you got paid per showing, so if you were lucky enough to have a writing credit on a Seinfeld or Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, something heavily syndicated, you'd get a decent chunk of income for a long time.
In the streaming ecosystem it's a flat fee for the work being available and you get zilch for each showing. In fact, the streamers won't even tell you how many t
Re: (Score:2)
So how much should someone get paid for a job that is probably going to become.
Step zero 0) feed the existing work on the media property into the LLM someone else built as a training set. - Come back later
Step 1) Copy paste the bullet points for the current episode from the show runner into the system
Step 2) Read the results to make sure the LLM did not do anything ridiculous
Step 2.5 optional) make some minor manual edits.
Step 3) Tweak the prompt slightly and return to step 2
Step 4) Repeat from 1 for 8 to
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hell should someone get 60k+ for a week or two of effort?
Why should this asshole [wikipedia.org] get 70k+ for 24 hours of effort?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not as good as the work done by a human but put some pretty SFX on it and people will line up at the trough to consume it. :(
That's basically what got the star wars sequels though. Shows you how much Hollywood can actually polish turds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'll indirectly get your wish when Honest Trailers fires their writers and replaces them with LLM, lol
Re: How about (Score:2)
Somebody needs to create a consumer AI that will watch this AI generated content on my behalf.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you go on strike, and nobody cares... does it matter?
Won't Make A Difference (Score:3)
I think we all know by now that the screenwriter is not respected in the creation of any theatrical production.
It is usually the studio, producers, or director screaming at the screenwriters to "WRITE IT THE WAY I WANT"
I suspect many screenwriters are talented in the literary arts but write scripts Cuz It All Be Bout 'Da Benjamins Baby - a good screenwriter can make good money.
So AI learning how to create scripts by studying published scripts might simply lead to Hollywood turning out even crappier movies & TV shows at a much faster rate - and the screenwriters would still be getting screwed over.
Two words (Score:4, Interesting)
Neener neener. Seriously though, this shouldn't be too difficult. Most writing in Hollywood extremely derivative, formulaic, and boring. The best writers will still have a job and will still be sought after. From an economic standpoint, people are always the most expensive part of any business. People who demand more and more for the same work will eventually be replaced in one way or another. The most expensive is the person who expects to be paid over and over for years after they made the product.
Re: (Score:2)
People who demand more and more for the same work will eventually be replaced in one way or another.
Unless they're in the C-suite.
Re: (Score:2)
And funny enough, they are the ones that could easiest be replaced by AI.
Hell, most CEOs could be replaced by a magic-8-ball.
Re: (Score:2)
Most writing in Hollywood extremely derivative, formulaic, and boring. The best writers will still have a job and will still be sought after. From an economic standpoint, people are always the most expensive part of any business. People who demand more and more for the same work will eventually be replaced in one way or another. The most expensive is the person who expects to be paid over and over for years after they made the product.
Cry me a fucking river about paying writers. https://www.hollywoodreporter.... [hollywoodreporter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I've never met anyone older than 30 outside of economists working in academia who still believe the most talented don't wash out of industries and they end up making the most money. Thinking the best will rise to the top as a success and then charge the most is... it's like an economist's flat earth theory equivalent: Van Gogh is a myth!
You think every single kid who went into a gifted children program Made It Big, and didn't instead end up disappearing into the middle and trying to drown out a sense of per
Re: (Score:2)
The world has some elements of a meritocracy in it, but they are thoroughly saturated with corruption.
Though also there is a demand bell curve at work. There is a point where one's talent can exceed the level that is in demand. Movies, for example, usually have the intent of "make as much money as possible" when they are created. That means that the movie must have appeal to the widest possible demographic. This demographic is dominantly populated by, shall we say, "commoners," not intellectual elites.
Re:Two words (Score:4, Interesting)
Even a mediocre professional writer is better than chat GPT, honestly. Most of the time that the scripts are formulaic and boring, it's because the premise of the show was formulaic and boring, which is a problem with the C-suite dimwits for approving those shows. They LOVE rehashing old shit.
The problem with Hollywood is mostly the ding-dongs at the top. Read the history of how 'Mad Men' was rejected repeatedly and only just barely given a shot by FX, where it ended up a huge hit. HBO got pitched it a couple of times, and it was endorsed by the creator of the Sopranos, and they still passed on it. That's not a writer problem.
"Here's a nickle, now train your replacement." (Score:2)
If Hollywood writing seems dumbed down today, consider the possibility that the kind of writing talent Hollywood studios most want are the largest possible number of rubes who would never - even if their livelihoods depended on it - recognise a contract that serves as agreeing to cross every picket line from now until eternity, or a union that's working for the studios interest and not theirs.
trivial (Score:2)
Most Hollywood scripts can be arrived at by taking previous Hollywood scripts and simply doing a bunch of text-replace operations; you don't need AI.
The union pretty much gave away the store (Score:2)
If they are allowing the studios to "train" AI (but presumably not use the trained models), the _using_ of the trained models is coming soon. This contract is, after all, a limited duration contract. Once they have the models trained, and the contract expires, the unions will have much less leverage the next time around, because the models will be already trained and ready to step in for the striking workers.
Re: (Score:2)
If the writers ever wanted to work again, they were never going to get something into the contract saying the studios couldn't train AI based on existing scripts. The studios would never just let the tech companies and startups do it while just ignoring to build the capability themselves.
Bad deal (Score:2)
When all the current writers are dead or retired, there will be no new ones.
Screw AI (Score:1)
Game of Thrones (Score:1)
Not as big a concession as it appears. (Score:2)