What Would It Look Like If Screenwriters Embrace AI? It's Complicated [ATX]
There has been (understandably) an almost nauseating amount of talk about artificial intelligence lately, regardless of what one does for a living. AI is threatening to potentially change — if not outright replace — an alarming number of jobs in the coming years. In the entertainment industry, screenwriters are particularly concerned that studios will try and replace a lot of human labor by using AI-generated scripts. That's one of the central issues of the ongoing writers' strike that has all but shut down much of Hollywood.
It's an immensely complicated topic, and one that doesn't come with a "one size fits all" solution for writers who are bracing for impact. Part of that has to do with the fact that the technology is sure to evolve rapidly in the coming months and years. During a panel at this year's ATX Television Festival in Austin, Texas, several creatives gathered to discuss the hot-button issue and one interesting thread emerged: what might it look like if screenwriters actually embrace AI? The varying opinions on the matter painted a picture of just how complicated the future may become, and why this topic is important to tackle before it gets away from everyone.
The panel included actor Kevin Bigley ("Upload"), writer/showrunner Alena Smith ("Dickinson"), and writer/executive producer Javier Grillo-Marxuach ("Cowboy Bebop"), as well as Dr. Emilia Javorsky of the Future of Life Institute. Pretty quickly, Smith made it clear she is not a fan of AI and what studios want to do with it. "Things are gonna get weird," she said, before getting to the crux of her take, which is that "[AI] shines a direct light on the parts of us that are not replaceable by machines, and robots, and algorithms, and data that streams, and surveillance, and clicks, and likes."
'There was a human at the center making choices'
The creator of "Dickinson" and writer of "The Affair" got very candid about how studios are approaching this technological revolution. "There is no question that, right now, studios are trying to figure out if they can punch buttons and print out screenplays," Alena Smith said before cynically adding, "They've all always wished that they could do that." She did concede that perhaps certain types of crowd-pleasers could be written by AI though:
"Maybe they can in certain instances? Maybe you can make a James Bond or a Marvel movie. I don't know. There is going to be a categorical distinction between what can be made by robots and what cannot. I guess I feel like it's on all of us as creators, and audience, and community, to seek out what is real."
The main thing for Smith seemed to be that AI may have its uses, but the human element is just too important to consider replacing in any serious way. "It's totally possible I could have used an AI helper," Smith said of her work on "Dickinson," which followed a young Emily Dickinson in the 19th century. In talking about that three-season show, Smith concluded that AI couldn't have provided the same context she and her staff were able to:
"There was a human at the center making choices about what to put in and what to leave out. The only way I was able to do that was context. I was establishing the rules of a certain game and then inviting my audience to play the game, and my actors, and everyone who made the show. I'm laying all of that out to say there's never been anything original [written by AI]. There's no f*****g way robots are going to be able to do that"
'It's moving at the speed of capitalism'
In addressing whether or not AI can be beneficial for writers, Javier Grillo-Marxuach (whose other credits include "Lost" and "The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance") didn't hesitate in saying "absolutely." In his mind, there is no stopping it so there is no choice but to try and embrace it. "It's moving at the speed of capitalism," he quipped. "The speed of light has nothing on the speed of capitalism. It's out there. You can't unring the bell." He further cemented his stance by stating unequivocally, "AI is going to write. I don't like the implication that AI can write 'Fast & Furious' but [not] 'Succession.' AI will write 'Succession.'"
That may seem bold, but Grillo-Marxuach seemed to be filtering his stance through the lens of the reality we live in (as he sees it). "We need to teach this technology to enable us to make better choices for us," he said before noting, "It is only going to be as good as who is feeding it what." The notion that AI is just a "plagiarism machine" came up multiple times. To that end, AI like ChatGPT needs new stuff fed into it to function. "The role of the person who comes up with things that are original and novel is not going to go away in our society," he added.
So, what does Grillo-Marxuach propose? He feels that demonstrating what writers can do with it is key, rather than having the studios do what they please with it before using writers as an afterthought:
"We need to grab those tools and say 'Here's what I can do with it.' Instead of the studios telling us, 'Here's what we think you should be doing, and here's a sh***y script that we came up with in AI. Can you rewrite it?' Our immediate nightmare scenario is not robots are going to take over our jobs. Our immediate nightmare scenario is somebody is going to get an AI to write a crappy script, and then they're going to make me rewrite it into a good script for less money."
'AI is all based on theft'
There are clear avenues of both optimism and pessimism that one can wander down in approaching this topic. Javier Grillo-Marxuach seemed to be circumstantially optimistic, assuming writers sort of take the wheel and steer the ship. "It can be a huge creativity multiplier for all of us. We just have to not be afraid of it," he said. Alena Smith, meanwhile, seemed to have more of a burn-it-down mentality. "These AI machines don't tell you facts, they kind of just give you vibes," she said. "We really should just call them bulls**t machines."
As far as actionable things that can be done to help writers in an AI-dominated future? Grillo-Marxuach actually addressed the plagiarism machine of it all and had a suggestion for how to approach crediting and, perhaps more importantly, paying writers as this technology begins to become more prevalent:
"Why isn't there a piece of software that can spit out a 10-page printout telling me everything that this computer looked at, and create a residual structure around that?"
Studios have no motivation to create such software, as it means cutting into the bottom line. The appeal of AI is being able to cut costs. But, at the end of the day, mass plagiarism probably won't stand because the studios want to protect what they own as well. Smith made this point very clear during the panel:
"An AI, these training sets, they include a hell of a lot of copyrighted work. That has not been sorted out yet. I just want to be clear, because AI is all based on theft. Theft has occurred. The question is, are we going to let the theft become taken for granted?"
'You're telling me it can't write Cocaine Bear?'
One thing that everyone seemed to agree on is that AI-generated entertainment is coming, whether we like it or not. Kevin Bigley got into the conversation at one point to suggest that AI has its limitations but, even within those limitations as they currently exist, there is money to be made:
"[AI] can't surprise. It can mimic for sure. How many Redbox movies are there out there that are genuinely f*****g surprising? You can do that, and you can make a living off of it. That's also a scary thing. It can, right now, generate a screenplay that could go into production. It would suck. But a studio could put it out there as an AI-generated movie, and it would make its money back pretty quickly."
Bigley also added jokingly, "You're telling me it can't write 'Cocaine Bear?'" At this point, everyone on the panel was quick to defend "Cocaine Bear." On the subject of what kinds of art AI can and cannot make, Javier Grillo-Marxuach asked a pretty key question. "We talk about, can an AI write a show as good as 'Succession?' Let me ask another question: can an AI make a movie as bad as 'Plan 9 from Other Space?'" Grillo-Marxuach argued that there is an essential humanity to the work of someone like Ed Wood, who made roundly-panned movies that have somehow stood the test of time.
Indeed, it's not hard to imagine a bad AI-written movie, but it is hard to imagine one making a "so bad it's good" movie that we sometimes get thanks to people who fancy themselves as artists. AI can't make "The Room," is another way to put it.
What kind of world do we want to live in?
To round things out, everyone put forth some version of how they feel this could/should shake out in the coming months and years. "There are things that need to be done about breaking up these giant corporations so they don't have so much power," said Alena Smith. While she was talking about Google, media companies have become monstrously huge thanks to never-ending consolidation and mergers. As a result, they have a tremendous amount of power. Smith also pointed out that AI was, ideally, not supposed to look like this:
"People keep making the brilliant point that AI was supposed to come and do all of the boring jobs so that we can all make art, and have creativity, and fun. But now, for some reason, the AI is doing all of the art, and the creativity, and we are doing all of the boring jobs."
"What kind of world do we want to live in? And it remains an open question: with this technology or without it," Smith concluded. Kevin Bigley then circled around to make the point that not all technological change is permanent. As a means of demonstrating that point, he asked the simple question, "How's that 2Pac hologram doing?" That point, it's worth noting, got quite the response from the crowd.
In the end, Javier Grillo-Marxuach brought things home with what seemed to be a pretty realistic, unsexy view of all of this. If people want to see change, they are going to have to make it happen in a down-and-dirty fashion, just like the Writers Guild of America is doing right now:
"The biggest thing that is going to change this is going to be human action that isn't going to be glamorous. It's not going to be interesting. It's going to be a bunch of people outside with signs saying, 'Don't do this to us.'"