7 ms·

Summary of the 2023 WGA MBA

36 points by mattcollins 3y ago

mattcollins 3y ago
Per the WGA's summary: 1) AI can’t write or rewrite literary material, and AI-generated material will not be considered source material under the MBA, meaning that AI-generated material can’t be used to undermine a writer’s credit or separated rights. 2) A writer can choose to use AI when performing writing services, if the company consents and provided that the writer follows applicable company policies, but the company can’t require the writer to use AI software (e.g., ChatGPT) when performing writing services. 3) The Company must disclose to the writer if any materials given to the writer have been generated by AI or incorporate AI-generated material. 4) The WGA reserves the right to assert that exploitation of writers’ material to train AI is prohibited by MBA or other law.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- eps 3y ago
  It reads like the writers are perfectly fine with the AI for as long as they get to use it.
  - avereveard 3y ago
    well yeah it always is about protectionism and barrier to entry I find it interesting tho that they are not worried about competition between writers within the association, they will have members that decide for using assisted writing and being a lot more productive than others.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      The point is that they can decide for themselves if using AI would benefit them and choose to use it or not Personally, I wonder how useful AI is going to be in terms of output over the long term. AI will endlessly regurgitate a mash up of what it was trained on in various flavors, but the output will all seem pretty samey after a while since it lacks actual originality. "This reads like something AI wrote" is something I see a lot of already. I'm sure there'll be writers who find it useful, but I don't see it being used for the bulk of their output. At least, I hope they don't just churn out scripts with AI, spend 5 minutes tweaking them, then call it day. I can't imagine that making great material.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        How is that any different than the way stories have always been told? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots
        Kye 3y ago
        This is a writing tool. You're making the same mistake AI people do. You can create stuff that's like what came before all day, but it won't create anything new. Literary analysis, like these plots and the more common monomyth, is about what already exists, and lags far behind. It's the same deal with music theory. People will spend years in music school learning all kinds of stuff about music, but then they have no idea how to make anything anyone wants to listen to. Music theory as taught in schools is just catching up to jazz, rock, and rap, and there's a lot of resistance. An AI could probably do some solid analysis, like producing a beat sheet from a novel. That might be helpful. I could pants a draft, then have an AI make the outline for the second draft.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Look at the top 10 movies released this year. Do any of them have a plot that you would consider it anything new?
  - pavlov 3y ago
    Which is how Hollywood has always worked? You can’t do as much as move a light or push “Record” on a film set without being a union member. The VFX industry has been an exception. But frankly the deteriorating working conditions, rampant outsourcing to semi-shady companies, and just the overall downwards spiral of the quality of VFX in Hollywood movies suggests that maybe it’s not a model to emulate.
  - dageshi 3y ago
    I think the issue was in the old rules writers got paid very differently whether they created an original script vs working on an existing script. The fear was, studio's would use AI to generate a garbage script then pay a writer far less to effectively completely rewrite it to make it usable.
    - bayindirh 3y ago
      Or to get an existing script, somehow write a sequel/prequel with AI, and pay some writers way less to polish it.
  - JambalayaJim 3y ago
    That’s entirely the way it should be! AI used to help labour, not subjugate it.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - bratbag 3y ago
    It reads more like writers don't want their work being used as corpus for ai without them getting paid. Which is fair, in a society where people need money for food and shelter.
  - junek 3y ago
    In the same way I'm OK with knives so long as one isn't being held to my throat.
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    Writers' use of AI is self regulating. If the writer is completely opposed to AI, they can omit its use, or if they want, they can use the way they see fit, incl. turning it up to 11. If the writer's quality decreases because of excessive AI use, it's the writer's problem. They need to regulate their use. If the writer can use it to hone their skills, they can profit from it. From my personal perspective, as a person who doesn't use xGPT or other models because of unethical training from my perspective, this makes sense.
  - RangerScience 3y ago
    Yes. Empowerment of worker (or in this case, creative) = good thing Replacement of worker = bad thing This has been the fight over automation since :checks notes: at least 1811 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - konschubert 3y ago
    I think this will have 0 effect. Writers that use AI will push some of the writers that don't use AI out of the market. What exact scenario have they prevented? At the extreme end, which won't happen but which would be possible under these rules, there could be a single writer who is basically just prompt engineering and reviewing what the AI spits out, for hundreds of shows. That a studio would use AI to generate a script without the involvement of a single writer? That wasn't going to happen anyways. So what was the point of this? Is there something I am missing?
    - Kye 3y ago
      Enter: writing room minimum staffing
- SSLy 3y ago
  how does it work out with something as old as grammarly or the advanced spell/grammar/usage/style checking now rolled into Word?
smeagull 3y ago
Can't wait to see how hollywood accounting and business structures run roughshod over this.
- ggm 3y ago
  "Because 50% of the writing was AI the residual has been halved"
SilverBirch 3y ago
I think this is eminently sensible as a solution to this problem. AI is a tool that skilled professionals can use for productivity. This idea that AI was just going to replace writers never really made much sense - the generation of the actual text is only one part of the job and not the important part of the creative process. This way the writers have the freedom to use this new tooling, the Studios don't get to dictate which tools writers use (just like they're not going to insist on you using a specific brand of computer), and if in aggregate this increases productivity... well that's just great, that's the free market. And importantly, the writer is the one using and experiencing the productivity benefit. In aggregate that might drive the total demand for writers down, but again, that's just the free market.
- surfingdino 3y ago
  I have used AI to produce an audio version and translations of my short story. I am not impressed. The best tools generate audio that is of high quality but missed a lot of the nuance of the written text, sometimes distort simple words. When it comes to translation, 80-90% of the sentences had to be fixed for grammar, spelling or other reasons (modifications to the meaning of the sentence, bad handling of gender in gendered languages. I came to the conclusion that writers, editors, proofreaders, and translators have nothing to fear from AI. I also noticed that AI is programmed to avoid getting its creators into legal/PR trouble. For example, if you ask AI to perform certain editing jobs on a piece of content that may be somehow connected to a political or a religious issue it will refuse to do so. Not much help if you want to produce a piece of writing that may be a commentary on such issues, be it an article or a screenplay.
  - famouswaffles 3y ago
    Doesn't say much if we don't know what AI you're talking about? The best LLM is far ahead of everything else. If it's GPT-4, translation, editing, proofreading is definitely something to fear.
    - surfingdino 3y ago
      It's one of the big three. I am deliberately not naming it, because I do not want to steer the conversation into "You clearly should have used LLM X". That's not the point here.
rg111 3y ago
What about the SAG-AFTRA? Have they reached any agreement regarding AI? When AI became plausible and produced full body deepfakes, I concluded that it was only a matter of time to use AI to extend and emulate real actors. The sensible agreement should have been that an actor, via an agency, or a software stack, will control their full body AI avatar. And they will license them to studios for a movie or a commercial ad. They will charge maybe 20%-90% of the fees that they receive. BUT, it blew my mind that studios were audacious enough to float the idea or propose that actors will be paid a small hourly wage or minimum wage for small actors for scanning their bodies, and after that the studios get to keep and use the digital avatar for perpetuity for free. Whoa! I was shocked to learned that. There was, as expected, dispute. What happened to that part?
- thehodge 3y ago
  That's next, they were only dealing with one union at once.
kepler1 3y ago
# of Episodes, Minimum # of writers in writers’ room --------------------------------- 6 or fewer, 3 7-12, 5 13+, 6 Minimum number of writers? Ok, go ahead and tell me that union labor isn't about padding payrolls.
- autoexec 3y ago
  Protections against being under-staffed and overworked seems like exactly the kind of thing you'd want in a contract. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I mean, one person could probably come up with six scripts given enough time, but having input from other writers is likely to be very helpful. Even if you thought collaboration had no value whatsoever, having 3 people each working on a script at once means your entire 6 episode season gets done that much faster. Plus you figure life happens and people get sick, need days off, etc. Having more than one body in the writer's room still seems like a good idea.
  - kepler1 3y ago
    Why should the contract have to dictate that, when it's the production that would have to pay/suffer if they shortsightedly understaffed something? The writers have sick days and time off protections already. Seems to me this is about guaranteeing employment. If having more than one body in the writer's room is needed, let the production decide that or live with the consequences.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      Because often they find ways around the "suffering", e.g., just marketing the hell out of bad stuff and making money on it anyway by getting eyeballs on it. See: Netflix, Amazon, etc. content farms for example.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - autoexec 3y ago
      > when it's the production that would have to pay/suffer if they shortsightedly understaffed something It isn't just the production that would suffer if the writer is overworked. The writer is the person under pressure to deliver the script on time. Worse, the output would suffer because one stressed out person, who doesn't have the time needed to do the job properly, isn't going to be doing their best work. It's the writer's name that ends up in the credits of whatever gets produced and the quality of the work determines their future employment.
hoseja 3y ago
I don't understand in the slightest how modern "writers" can demand anything at all. Recent scripts everywhere have been disaster after disaster after disaster, with only a handful of mostly indie exceptions.
- Kye 3y ago
  You have cause and effect confused. The things they struck to stop are why things were getting worse.

36 points by mattcollins 3y ago

Per the WGA's summary: 1) AI can’t write or rewrite literary material, and AI-generated material will not be considered source material under the MBA, meaning that AI-generated material can’t be used to undermine a writer’s credit or separated rights. 2) A writer can choose to use AI when performing writing services, if the company consents and provided that the writer follows applicable company policies, but the company can’t require the writer to use AI software (e.g., ChatGPT) when performing writing services. 3) The Company must disclose to the writer if any materials given to the writer have been generated by AI or incorporate AI-generated material. 4) The WGA reserves the right to assert that exploitation of writers’ material to train AI is prohibited by MBA or other law.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
eps 3y ago
It reads like the writers are perfectly fine with the AI for as long as they get to use it.
- avereveard 3y ago
  well yeah it always is about protectionism and barrier to entry I find it interesting tho that they are not worried about competition between writers within the association, they will have members that decide for using assisted writing and being a lot more productive than others.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    The point is that they can decide for themselves if using AI would benefit them and choose to use it or not Personally, I wonder how useful AI is going to be in terms of output over the long term. AI will endlessly regurgitate a mash up of what it was trained on in various flavors, but the output will all seem pretty samey after a while since it lacks actual originality. "This reads like something AI wrote" is something I see a lot of already. I'm sure there'll be writers who find it useful, but I don't see it being used for the bulk of their output. At least, I hope they don't just churn out scripts with AI, spend 5 minutes tweaking them, then call it day. I can't imagine that making great material.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      How is that any different than the way stories have always been told? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots
      - Kye 3y ago
        This is a writing tool. You're making the same mistake AI people do. You can create stuff that's like what came before all day, but it won't create anything new. Literary analysis, like these plots and the more common monomyth, is about what already exists, and lags far behind. It's the same deal with music theory. People will spend years in music school learning all kinds of stuff about music, but then they have no idea how to make anything anyone wants to listen to. Music theory as taught in schools is just catching up to jazz, rock, and rap, and there's a lot of resistance. An AI could probably do some solid analysis, like producing a beat sheet from a novel. That might be helpful. I could pants a draft, then have an AI make the outline for the second draft.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Look at the top 10 movies released this year. Do any of them have a plot that you would consider it anything new?
- pavlov 3y ago
  Which is how Hollywood has always worked? You can’t do as much as move a light or push “Record” on a film set without being a union member. The VFX industry has been an exception. But frankly the deteriorating working conditions, rampant outsourcing to semi-shady companies, and just the overall downwards spiral of the quality of VFX in Hollywood movies suggests that maybe it’s not a model to emulate.
- dageshi 3y ago
  I think the issue was in the old rules writers got paid very differently whether they created an original script vs working on an existing script. The fear was, studio's would use AI to generate a garbage script then pay a writer far less to effectively completely rewrite it to make it usable.
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    Or to get an existing script, somehow write a sequel/prequel with AI, and pay some writers way less to polish it.
- JambalayaJim 3y ago
  That’s entirely the way it should be! AI used to help labour, not subjugate it.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- bratbag 3y ago
  It reads more like writers don't want their work being used as corpus for ai without them getting paid. Which is fair, in a society where people need money for food and shelter.
- junek 3y ago
  In the same way I'm OK with knives so long as one isn't being held to my throat.
- bayindirh 3y ago
  Writers' use of AI is self regulating. If the writer is completely opposed to AI, they can omit its use, or if they want, they can use the way they see fit, incl. turning it up to 11. If the writer's quality decreases because of excessive AI use, it's the writer's problem. They need to regulate their use. If the writer can use it to hone their skills, they can profit from it. From my personal perspective, as a person who doesn't use xGPT or other models because of unethical training from my perspective, this makes sense.
- RangerScience 3y ago
  Yes. Empowerment of worker (or in this case, creative) = good thing Replacement of worker = bad thing This has been the fight over automation since :checks notes: at least 1811 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- konschubert 3y ago
  I think this will have 0 effect. Writers that use AI will push some of the writers that don't use AI out of the market. What exact scenario have they prevented? At the extreme end, which won't happen but which would be possible under these rules, there could be a single writer who is basically just prompt engineering and reviewing what the AI spits out, for hundreds of shows. That a studio would use AI to generate a script without the involvement of a single writer? That wasn't going to happen anyways. So what was the point of this? Is there something I am missing?
  - Kye 3y ago
    Enter: writing room minimum staffing
SSLy 3y ago
how does it work out with something as old as grammarly or the advanced spell/grammar/usage/style checking now rolled into Word?

smeagull 3y ago

Can't wait to see how hollywood accounting and business structures run roughshod over this.

ggm 3y ago
"Because 50% of the writing was AI the residual has been halved"

SilverBirch 3y ago

I think this is eminently sensible as a solution to this problem. AI is a tool that skilled professionals can use for productivity. This idea that AI was just going to replace writers never really made much sense - the generation of the actual text is only one part of the job and not the important part of the creative process. This way the writers have the freedom to use this new tooling, the Studios don't get to dictate which tools writers use (just like they're not going to insist on you using a specific brand of computer), and if in aggregate this increases productivity... well that's just great, that's the free market. And importantly, the writer is the one using and experiencing the productivity benefit. In aggregate that might drive the total demand for writers down, but again, that's just the free market.

surfingdino 3y ago
I have used AI to produce an audio version and translations of my short story. I am not impressed. The best tools generate audio that is of high quality but missed a lot of the nuance of the written text, sometimes distort simple words. When it comes to translation, 80-90% of the sentences had to be fixed for grammar, spelling or other reasons (modifications to the meaning of the sentence, bad handling of gender in gendered languages. I came to the conclusion that writers, editors, proofreaders, and translators have nothing to fear from AI. I also noticed that AI is programmed to avoid getting its creators into legal/PR trouble. For example, if you ask AI to perform certain editing jobs on a piece of content that may be somehow connected to a political or a religious issue it will refuse to do so. Not much help if you want to produce a piece of writing that may be a commentary on such issues, be it an article or a screenplay.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  Doesn't say much if we don't know what AI you're talking about? The best LLM is far ahead of everything else. If it's GPT-4, translation, editing, proofreading is definitely something to fear.
  - surfingdino 3y ago
    It's one of the big three. I am deliberately not naming it, because I do not want to steer the conversation into "You clearly should have used LLM X". That's not the point here.

rg111 3y ago

What about the SAG-AFTRA? Have they reached any agreement regarding AI? When AI became plausible and produced full body deepfakes, I concluded that it was only a matter of time to use AI to extend and emulate real actors. The sensible agreement should have been that an actor, via an agency, or a software stack, will control their full body AI avatar. And they will license them to studios for a movie or a commercial ad. They will charge maybe 20%-90% of the fees that they receive. BUT, it blew my mind that studios were audacious enough to float the idea or propose that actors will be paid a small hourly wage or minimum wage for small actors for scanning their bodies, and after that the studios get to keep and use the digital avatar for perpetuity for free. Whoa! I was shocked to learned that. There was, as expected, dispute. What happened to that part?

thehodge 3y ago
That's next, they were only dealing with one union at once.

kepler1 3y ago

# of Episodes, Minimum # of writers in writers’ room --------------------------------- 6 or fewer, 3 7-12, 5 13+, 6 Minimum number of writers? Ok, go ahead and tell me that union labor isn't about padding payrolls.

autoexec 3y ago
Protections against being under-staffed and overworked seems like exactly the kind of thing you'd want in a contract. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I mean, one person could probably come up with six scripts given enough time, but having input from other writers is likely to be very helpful. Even if you thought collaboration had no value whatsoever, having 3 people each working on a script at once means your entire 6 episode season gets done that much faster. Plus you figure life happens and people get sick, need days off, etc. Having more than one body in the writer's room still seems like a good idea.
- kepler1 3y ago
  Why should the contract have to dictate that, when it's the production that would have to pay/suffer if they shortsightedly understaffed something? The writers have sick days and time off protections already. Seems to me this is about guaranteeing employment. If having more than one body in the writer's room is needed, let the production decide that or live with the consequences.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    Because often they find ways around the "suffering", e.g., just marketing the hell out of bad stuff and making money on it anyway by getting eyeballs on it. See: Netflix, Amazon, etc. content farms for example.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - autoexec 3y ago
    > when it's the production that would have to pay/suffer if they shortsightedly understaffed something It isn't just the production that would suffer if the writer is overworked. The writer is the person under pressure to deliver the script on time. Worse, the output would suffer because one stressed out person, who doesn't have the time needed to do the job properly, isn't going to be doing their best work. It's the writer's name that ends up in the credits of whatever gets produced and the quality of the work determines their future employment.

hoseja 3y ago

I don't understand in the slightest how modern "writers" can demand anything at all. Recent scripts everywhere have been disaster after disaster after disaster, with only a handful of mostly indie exceptions.

Kye 3y ago
You have cause and effect confused. The things they struck to stop are why things were getting worse.