ChatGPT don't get involved! Hollywood writers refuse to "work for AI", collective strike protest

ChatGPT probably never dreamed that they would one day become the reason for human strikes.

Whether the work will be replaced by AI has not yet been determined, Hollywood screenwriters have taken the lead in the strike. The reason for their strike is not exactly fear of losing their jobs, but mainly because AI creation makes them feel insulted.

Previously, the group of writers had been negotiating with major entertainment companies, including Netflix and Disney, for six weeks. But the results were obvious - the talks fell apart.

（The idea of (film and TV companies) replacing writers with AI is the most worrying - it shows that these companies don't value writers and their work.

One of the visions of the studios is to have AI generate drafts of film and television works, which are then touched up by humans. This seems to Hollywood screenwriters to be more than using AI to create their work; it's like having humans work for AI. Obviously, this idea offended the writers, they directly said that the door is not.

They demanded that the studios not leave the AI-generated material to human revision. Unsurprisingly, the studios refused, saying tokenistically that they would "discuss technological advances at their annual meetings".

In response, "Charlie and his Chocolate Factory" screenwriter John August pointed out sharply that the so-called "annual meeting discussion" is simply nonsense.

Artificial intelligence-generated materials are not just a few years away - they've been flooding our world for a long time. Robert Cargill, the writer of "Doctor Strange," said on social media that the scary thing is not that jobs will be replaced by AI, but that writers will be relegated to rewriting AI-generated "crap" for very little pay, when they could have done a better job.

In addition to refusing to provide revisions to AI drafts, writers have also demanded that AI-generated content not be included in film and television productions, but have also been refused. In the writers' view, the use of AI in creative writing is unacceptable, even if this AI-generated-human revision model is not used.

The same Cargill, who argued that AIs can only Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V, and that their "work" is worthless.

A Marvel writer, Quinton Peeples, also believes that the use of AI-generated film and television works is an insult to humans.

Screenwriters have always been valued for their ability to express the uniquely human experience. So if you're now saying that machines can do a better job, it's not only absurd, it's a huge insult to people.

Previously, Netflix had caused outrage for using AI-generated content in its launch animation, Dogs and Teens.

After the release of Netflix's animation, Hayao Miyazaki, a veteran in his 80s, came out against the AIGC work, saying unceremoniously that it was an insult to life.

The inescapable copyright issue

Another claim of the writers was that human works should not be used to train the AI, but in fact, the AI already uses a lot of human works in the training process. Most of these works are copyrighted, and the creators who own the copyrights have never authorized the AI to use their works.

Obviously, they are aware that once they surrender their rights to their works, they will not be able to predict in what way their hard work will be used. The creators certainly did not want their work to be ravaged by the AI. This demand has also resonated with many screenwriters outside of Hollywood, and even creators in other literary fields.

Maugham-winning author Hari Kunzru said creators of other literary genres should also be concerned about the negotiations being conducted by Hollywood screenwriters. Kunzru said he would not license his work for LLM training unless he had control of the model.

The writers' fears are not unreasonable, according to some users: although there is no way for AI to completely replace the work of screenwriters, this does not prevent AI from being deployed on a large scale.

After all, reducing costs and increasing efficiency. Others, however, feel that writers are overreacting: Chatbots may replace crappy writers, but they can't replace good ones. Some even trolled the writers, saying that since they were on strike, AI could immediately replace their jobs.

And in the corner of the debate, there are some people who are waiting for the AI to "do something new" ......