[December 1, 2023] AI (artificial intelligence) was a key issue in the recent
Hollywood actors' and writers' strikes for two reasons. One, the worry
that union workers might be replaced with AI generated actors and
scripts (AI as competition), and two, the claim that actors
and writers should be compensated because AI in some way copies their
faces and scripts (AI as infringement).
I'm not sure that AI is an issue for actors. CGI images are
an issue, because they increasingly resemble real people who might
compete with actors. But is that really AI? As I understand the term,
AI is when a computer creates something that it wasn't specifically
programed to do; it uses its own logic and data base of knowledge to
create something original. AI image generators do exist, but AI is not
required to create CGI images.
AI poses a greater threat to writers. Theoretically, I can foresee a
day in which an AI program writes an original play the equal of
Hamlet. Of course, most Hollywood scripts are formulaic hack work
that fall far short of Hamlet, so perhaps writers' cause for
concern is more urgent.
How good are AI's literary skills today?
Plenty of free AI generators exist online. I assume that Hollywood
studios and Big Tech firms have access to more advanced programs, but
I tried the AI generator at
Toolbaz.com,
just to test its skills.
I input "Christian crusader knight defeats Muslims." Many
online AI generators claim to filter out "hate" but, at least for now,
Toolbaz had no issue with Christians defeating Muslims. Here is the
story that Toolbaz wrote for me:
John was a Christian crusader knight who had been sent to the
Middle East to defend the Christian faith against the Muslim forces.
He had been training in the art of war for many years and was prepared
to do whatever it took to uphold the Christian faith.
For weeks, John clashed with the Muslim forces, but the tide
of battle was not in his favor. The Muslim forces were much larger and
better equipped than he was, and it seemed unlikely that he would be
able to win the fight.
But then, something changed. While on a scouting mission, John
stumbled upon a secret weapon that belonged to the Muslim forces. He
studied the weapon and realized that it could be used to his
advantage. With the help of his allies, he was able to turn the tide
of battle and eventually defeat the Muslim forces.
The victory was a great one for John and the Christian faith.
The people of the Middle East praised him for his courage and
strength, and many of them converted to Christianity in the wake of
his victory. John was hailed as a hero and remembered in Christian
history for centuries to come.
Okay, that's not terrible. Grammar and spelling are accurate. The
story structure is solid. A protagonist seeks a goal. He encounters
conflict. He is about to be defeated. But then, by his own actions and
some luck, he overcomes adversity and wins.
Not bad. But not Hamlet. The story is solid, but hackneyed
and unoriginal. Nuance and details are also lacking. Even so, this
story can serve as an outline for a hack writer to flesh out.
Certainly, the story is no more hackneyed than thousands of
direct-to-video and made-for cable movies.
I can see how AI might provide ideas and outlines for hack writers
suffering from writer's block. A sitcom writer once told me the staff
writers on his show kept a supply of old TV Guides. Whenever
they were stuck for ideas, they perused the episode descriptions of
past sitcoms.
Ever notice how so many sitcoms have episodes in which the characters
defend themselves in court rather than hire an attorney, or compete
with jealous coworkers for an award? How so many sitcoms still borrow
ideas from I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners? No
wonder hack writers fear AI.
But if writers can't stop AI, they can still demand compensation from
tech and media companies. The Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers
Association offered a typical argument for such compensation in their
statement to the U.S. Copyright Office, on October 30, 2023:
The current crop of artificial intelligence systems owes a
great debt to the work of creative human beings. Vast amounts of
copyrighted creative work, collected and processed without regard to
the moral and legal rights of its creators, have been copied into and
used by these systems that appear to produce new creative work. These
systems would not exist without the work of creative people, and
certainly would not be capable of some of their more startling
successes.
I was a member of SFWA for about ten years. It's their mission to
lobby for writers' interests. But their argument is erroneous. They
argue that because AI learns from reading writers' books and scripts,
these writers should be compensated.
But that's how all writers learn their craft, AI and
human.
In
Zen in the Art of Writing, Ray Bradbury discusses his youth, when
he was a voracious consumer of culture, both popular and literary.
It's how he learned to write.
When did it all really begin? The writing, that is. Everything
came together in the summer and fall and early winter of 1932. By that
time I was stuffed full of Buck Rogers, the novels of Edgar Rice
Burroughs, and the night-time radio serial "Chandu the Magician."
Chandu said magic and the psychic summons and the Far East and strange
places which made me sit down every night and from memory write out
the scripts of each show. ...
If I hadn't stuffed my eyes and stuffed my head with all of
the above for a lifetime, when it came round to word-associating
myself into story ideas, I would have brought up a ton of ciphers and
a half-ton of zeros.
Read the entire book. Bradbury cites many novels, comics, films, and
radio programs as influences. His point is, he learned how
and what to write by absorbing other writers, filmmakers
and artists. The same way all children learn to write and think.
The same way AI learns to write and think.
Many writers were voracious readers as children. The books that went
into us shaped our literary tastes, skills and sensibilities. Without
reading the James Bond novels at 13, and Ayn Rand and various horror
tales, and my foreign travels, I could not have written
Vampire Nation at 35. Everything I've ever read and seen suffuse
my supernatural, satirical spy thriller.
AI can be compared to a child who reads hundreds of books (or with AI,
tens of thousands), absorbs them, and then uses his own mind (the
computer's algorithms) to create something original.
When a human learns to write by reading books, that's a Fair Use of
those books. No copyright is infringed. No additional payments are
owed to the writers of those books. Just the one time cover price.
The same logic applies when an AI program learns to write by reading
books. It's a Fair Use of those books. No copyright is infringed. You
would think that science fiction writers would understand that.
It's not what human writers want to hear; they want royalties from AI
programs. But applying the doctrine of Fair Use to AI learning is
logical. Any Vulcan would agree.
|