Hannah Montana raised a philosophical notion when she sang about her ability to have the best of both worlds. Throughout history humans have wanted the best of both worlds, yearning for the romantic imagery of nature as we reach for the Doom to kill a small creature that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
We purchase self-help books and find podcasts to help us become our best self while scrolling through social media, searching for all the things we feel we are lacking. We criticise society and cancel non- conformists who rose to fame through our likes and shares. Karl Marx could only have been chuckling when he exclaimed that machines were the weapon used by the capitalist to stifle the revolt of specialised labour. If there is one thing humans have yet to accomplish, it is learning from history. This raises an important question: will Artificial Intelligence be the weapon used by the entertainment industry to stifle the creative? It is important to remember that AI is not “bad”, and it does not have the ability to be “bad”. AI will not wake up one morning and decide it is no longer your friend. AI will not gossip behind your back. All the blame-shifting in the world is not going to change that. It is all about how and why humans decide to use AI. It is the element of humanness behind the screen that causes Lady Justice’s scale to tilt and sway.
In May, many turned their attention to US news for reasons other than a sleeping president or celebrity scandal. The Writers Guild of America, representing 11 500 screenwriters, went on strike. It was not just any strike, but the largest interruption to American television and film production since the Covid-19 pandemic and the largest labour stoppage since the strike of 1988. Following suit, the Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists went on strike in July over similar issues, one of which being the use of AI in the film and entertainment industry.
Before turning to the issues raised by the strike, which reflect the growing concerns of many who rely on their creative work as a source of income, the current role of AI in entertainment should be explored. AI has mainly been adopted by the industry to lower costs, increase profit, and enhance production. An example of this is AI’s ability to analyse a film’s script to predict the revenue a film will bring back home. This goes hand in hand with its marketing abilities, which Warner Bros quickly took note of when they signed with the company Cinelytic to develop AI tools to better inform Warner Bros on ideal release dates, marketing, and distribution strategies (Come on ,Barbie, let’s go party, indeed). There are AI contributions which are fantastic no matter how they are spun, such as the ability to alter the actor’s mouth movements to make it look like they are speaking other languages, finally lessening the inevitable disconnect caused by dubbing. However, the scale begins to tilt when one observes other features, such as streamlining post-production, deep-faking actors, and script writing, which all seem to have the common denominator of profit, rather than purpose, in mind.
During the ongoing strike, writers have made their demands and fears loud and clear, most of which seem rooted in fears regarding compensation and employment. Writers are seeking compensation and guardrails for the use of AI. Writers and actors have taken many hits from modern society’s fast-developing technologies, watching their working conditions and wages erode in the face of streaming platforms and AI’s inherent movie-making-discount.
However, no creative has ever defined AI as “bad”, and many admit to using AI to improve their creativity and help complete banal tasks. Additionally, the fear amongst creatives of AI becoming “better” at art than creatives themselves seems nonexistent. Because artists and creatives have been dealing with criticism over their work since they showed their first sketch to their mothers, most are immune to a machine and understand the inherent foolishness of such a comparison. What creatives fear is that the reception of AI will decrease the value of their labour and skill, which would result in a decreased pay and employment. Writers have already noted such developments, being forced to work for short bursts to align with the streaming nature of bulk series releases, sitting across from some form of AI, feeding it concepts and ideas like a mamma bird to a never-satisfied baby bird, watching their own worms shrink as the baby gets fatter and fatter and eventually sits on them.
Without making too big a fuss about this conclusion, it seems that an obvious link between the creative’s fear and the use of AI is the context within which it is being used. Marx did not appear at the beginning of this piece by chance, for the context is capitalism. Good old capitalism. So far it has, overlooking obtuse flaws, allowed a sense of certainty to rest within the human condition.
However, in a capitalist economy, where individuals depend on the value of their labour in the marketplace for their survival, a drop in the value of a skill could cause widespread suffering to those depending on that skill for a living. Within this context ,the creative’s fear becomes not only understandable but worthy of empathy. No job seems safe. Accountants will become computers, doctors will become scanners and vending machines filled with colourful pills, and musicians will become codes.
Before spiralling into the depths of an existential meltdown, finish reading. The obsoletness of human skills is not inevitable; on the contrary, it is easily preventable if humans suck it up and decide to embrace some changes. There seem to be two options, one hysterically radical. Humans could do away with the commodification of entertainment and art. No longer will the creative work for money but for the love of the craft. However, the only person who may be truly excited about this idea is Marx, who is no longer here to call the vote. Alternatively, humans can work on a way to balance Liberty’s scales, allowing creatives to use AI to enhance creativity without fearing wage cuts. Technology should not aim to replace humans, but rather amplify human possibilities. It is within this context that Hannah’s dream could be one step closer to realisation.