Economics Corner: The sign of things to come? Hollywood entertainment strike.

[El Presidente]

I am finding the 100 day strike (and counting)  fascinating. 

Most of the issues are what you would expect between employee and employers in a changing distribution/tech world but it is the issue of "banning AI" in the entertainment writing realm that is most bizarre. Not since King Canute has there been such  self delusion. That battle is largely lost. 

It is hard not to think that what we are seeing playing out in this dispute is a merely a snapshot of the  global disruption in the arts and whitecollar industries over the next three years. Numbers abound but the one I have seen most touted is 300,000,000 jobs gone by the end of this decade. 

Now we are a resilient race. I can see some protections coming into play for arts industry (Mandatory requirement to differentiate/label AI and Human creations) but I will be buggered as to how you save low and mid level white collar service and administraive jobs across almost all sectors. 

For a large part of the workforce, is this a little like the frog in a pot on a stove? The water is certainly heating up. 

Would love your thoughts. 

 

 

 

At its core, the appearance of AI issues in the Hollywood strikes stems from writers’ and actors’ fears that their jobs and wages will be lost to automation. This is hardly the first time unionized workers have cited the risk of automation as a basis for striking. Indeed, it’s not even the first time in recent memory that automation has led to strikes in a US entertainment mecca

 

[Puros Y Vino]

Many "extras" have stated that they've shown up to jobs and had to be 3D scanned, back to front before they could work on the set.  Big name actors have already started putting protections in.  IIRC, DeNiro, Pacino and others have been using language in their contracts to not have their likenesses, voices, replicated, rendered via computer in either something they've appeared in or something posthumously.  Many actors are lobbying to not have long dead actors resurrected and put into movies as technology improves.  This is mostly done to protect their own wishes estate wise or until they kick the can altogether.  Many say they dont want to see studio put 3D characters such as Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, etc in a movie with Snoop Dogg, The Rock, etc.  If you look on youtube, amateurs are making some really impressive edits with Arnold Schwarzenegger face in classic movies with hilarious and convincing effect.

AI is a threat in so many ways. This is beyond automation as the logistics that applied in the Industrial Revolution are stone age in comparison to that of todays.

[El Presidente]

48 minutes ago, Puros Y Vino said:

Many "extras" have stated that they've shown up to jobs and had to be 3D scanned, back to front before they could work on the set.  Big name actors have already started putting protections in.  IIRC, DeNiro, Pacino and others have been using language in their contracts to not have their likenesses, voices, replicated, rendered via computer in either something they've appeared in or something posthumously.  Many actors are lobbying to not have long dead actors resurrected and put into movies as technology improves.  This is mostly done to protect their own wishes estate wise or until they kick the can altogether.  Many say they dont want to see studio put 3D characters such as Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, etc in a movie with Snoop Dogg, The Rock, etc.  If you look on youtube, amateurs are making some really impressive edits with Arnold Schwarzenegger face in classic movies with hilarious and convincing effect.

AI is a threat in so many ways. This is beyond automation as the logistics that applied in the Industrial Revolution are stone age in comparison to that of todays.

I would believe that the control of ones image and how it is portrayed will eventually be determined as a  "Human Right".  It certainly will be in the EU and that will be the deathknell of the issue everywhere. 

That doesn't stop a studio from developing the next digital James Bond etal. The studio will own that character/image etal.

[Corylax18]

14 hours ago, El Presidente said:

At its core, the appearance of AI issues in the Hollywood strikes stems from writers’ and actors’ fears that their jobs and wages will be lost to automation. This is hardly the first time unionized workers have cited the risk of automation as a basis for striking. Indeed, it’s not even the first time in recent memory that automation has led to strikes in a US entertainment mecca

The AI issues is definitely at the core of the writers strike, but it's not so simple with the actors. AI is definitely part of it, but royalties from streaming services is even bigger for the actors. Streaming services do all they can to conceal the true number of streams and the last contract was agreed to before streaming exploded the way it did. The actors want transparency in overall streaming numbers and a higher % of the take per stream. Just like musicians have wanted more than one penny per stream on Spotify. The streaming companies are loath to provide transparent numbers to anyone (look at Amazon and their Thursday night football #s, they cant even keep their own lies straight) and they are struggling to profit from the current model where the actors get little to nothing. The studios are caught in the middle, but the streaming companies will do everything they can to avoid any amount of transparency and fair payment, the actors don't want to accept that, so we have the current impasse. I don't know how its solved to be honest. Just like with "old School" movie theatres, the studios make a killing either way, so it seems if anyone should budge, it's them, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. 

I wouldn't want to be a writer in Hollywood/New York right now. There is certainly a small group that can and will do better than AI for years to come. But writers for News programs, talk shows, late night etc. are a dying breed. It's becoming harder and harder to make the financial case for their existence as AI gets better and better at writing basic, repetitive things given a few prompts. 

[targa88]

We have yet to see the extent and breadth of impact relative to jobs disappearing in many industries - as referenced white collar. Not to mention robotics as it applies to manual skills/labour.

Creative skills versus the accumulation of known data points.

At such a prepubescent stage, we are unaware of where will the knowledge start affecting the decision making process. It is such a fine line that it could be difficult to determine the overall impact.

Notwithstanding the reference to the industrial revolution  - I would tend to think that the breadth of impact in terms of lives will be larger.

[helix]

"42% of CEOs say AI could destroy humanity in five to ten years .

While 34% of CEOs said AI could potentially destroy humanity in ten years and 8% said that could happen in five years, 58% said that could never happen and they are “not worried.”

In a separate question, Yale found that 42% of the CEOs surveyed say the potential catastrophe of AI is overstated, while 58% say it is not overstated.

The findings come just weeks after dozens of AI industry leaders, academics and even some celebrities signed a statement warning of an “extinction” risk from AI."

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/14/business/artificial-intelligence-ceos-warning/index.html

[Nevrknow]

2 hours ago, El Presidente said:

but I will be buggered as to how you save low and mid level white collar service and administraive jobs across almost all sectors. 

Talking this very idea today with one of the owners of one of our customers. In our business alot of down time is consumed by what we call paper pushers. Permits, as-builts, " rubber stampers". They are overwhelmed so they say. How long before it hits this area?  Drawings correct? Check. Forms filled out properly? Check. Approved. Right or wrong. So long human.

As far as actually being able to build a 2 or 300,000 sq ft structure? I think I'm safe, for awhile.

[BoliDan]

Striking seems like a good reason to work harder on AI. It's like Russia going to war with Ukraine which just reinforces their desire/need to join NATO. 

Even if we use AI to write stories, wouldn't we want writers to proof it? See what's good, add to it, alter it, remove stuff, work on pacing, find opportunities for humor, etc? I don't see how we can completely remove the human brain from an artist's profession. But yeah, id still be afraid of I was a Hollywood writer. I'd probably start looking in to how to work with AI rather trying to stop it. The best they can do is slow it down, but that train isn't stopping.

[Digi]

Since the industrial revolution, when has a technological leap made for anything other than a significant increase in our workload?  That makes me chuckle a bit but I'm also being serious.

I already use generative AI daily in the work environment.  We just wrapped up a project using generative AI to create talk tracks and voice-overs for a series of videos.  The human role?  We edited the draft talk-tracks the AI produced - it was maybe 75% of the way there.  Good stuff.  Means the AI can focus on producing the minutiae and the initial big lift while my folks get to use their expertise to polish up the product to perfection.  

The net result?  Expectation went from producing 4 or 5 of these videos at a go to 20+.  Still doing pretty much the same work just in a different tool and quite a bit more of it.

The apocalyptic hand-wringing is both funny and irritating.  The surveys about how many CEOs think AI will cause a catastrophe is particularly good.  Even within educated populations there is little understanding of how AI actually works or is built - this includes CEOs.  Every week, I spend time first-hand with execs and board members to specifically talk about future technology and roadmaps.  They do not understand AI.  They aren't qualified to speak on the topic.

AI & machine learning are a massive leap forward in our computing capacity and capability but it's far from smart.  To worry about it "taking over" isn't likely to be something even my grandchildren will have to worry about.  Just to get started, we'd need an entirely different kind of computing foundation.  It'd be like, when the Model T came out, people pitching a fit and having anxiety attacks about what could happen if a car could go 100 miles per hour or operate the throttle automatically. 

Remember Y2K?  Fair to say even the technical people can get wound around the axle of FUD.

[99call]

Everyone keeps on talking about the fact that it's inevitable that huge swaths of the global workforce are going to be thrown on the slag heap of destitution.  This conveniently sidesteps the fact that there is an actual choice involved.!!!!!  It seems people are so innately programmed in preference towards greed and capitalism, that binning of their fellow man is a 'no brainer'. 

This new tool should be used for the advancement of the whole of humankind, not simply the start of some Gordon Gekko/Skynet co-lab. 

It's funny that in the start of AI we are criticising it for being limited or depressingly predictable, when this is exactly what the "humans" in charge of it are.  Money slaves in charge of mechanised slaves. 

[Yardley]

A couple thoughts.

We’ve been trying to automate our back office for a decade, only to see headcount grow. Near term fears of AI taking away jobs seem overblown. 

Feels like a “closed a door but opened a window” moment. Since cars took over the roads, you don’t many stables around, but you see a hell of a lot of auto mechanics. I’d expect computer programming literacy to increase drastically as all jobs will require a bit of an engineering mindset.

Those no secondary schooling required jobs will change as well. Tasks will be simpler, the floor will just be getting raised. Someone’s grandma used to physically connect phone lines for people to talk. If she were starting her career today she’d be customer service rep. Who knows what the next entry level job will be. 

[dageshi]

I think the issue El Pres is the rules around writing. I read somewhere that if you come in and work on an existing draft of a script you get significantly less money than if you work on the first draft.

The worry is that studios use AI to draft some absolute crap and then hire writers on to essentially completely re-write it, but under the existing rules they'd be paid far less even though they really wrote the entire thing from scratch.

 

[Fireball]

One day we will have full movies with no actors. It’s probably not that far off. AI will replace humans at most things - not necessarily in a terminator fashion.

But if you look at what types of things Boston Dynamics does with Robots and compare it with AI advances - it’s pretty wild.

[BrightonCorgi]

3 minutes ago, Fireball Ron said:

One day we will have full movies with no actors. It’s probably not that far off. AI will replace humans at most things- not necessarily in a terminator fashion.\

Have news delivered to you by any person you fancy or past or present.  How cool would it be for Marlon Brando or Humphrey Bogart broadcasting the news?  The news has the slant you prefer.  Movies will be stars of the golden era and not produced in Hollywood.  Rock Hudson and Rita Hayworth in an action thriller; sounds awesome!

[Puros Y Vino]

1 hour ago, Fireball Ron said:

One day we will have full movies with no actors. It’s probably not that far off. AI will replace humans at most things - not necessarily in a terminator fashion.

But if you look at what types of things Boston Dynamics does with Robots and compare it with AI advances - it’s pretty wild.

There's a Dark Mirror episode where robotic dogs are used for law enforcement. They hunt down people a la Terminator style.  Very similar to the Boston Dynamics models. 

[PuroDiario]

On 8/10/2023 at 3:28 AM, Digi said:

Since the industrial revolution, when has a technological leap made for anything other than a significant increase in our workload?  That makes me chuckle a bit but I'm also being serious.

I already use generative AI daily in the work environment.  We just wrapped up a project using generative AI to create talk tracks and voice-overs for a series of videos.  The human role?  We edited the draft talk-tracks the AI produced - it was maybe 75% of the way there.  Good stuff.  Means the AI can focus on producing the minutiae and the initial big lift while my folks get to use their expertise to polish up the product to perfection.  

The net result?  Expectation went from producing 4 or 5 of these videos at a go to 20+.  Still doing pretty much the same work just in a different tool and quite a bit more of it.

The apocalyptic hand-wringing is both funny and irritating.  The surveys about how many CEOs think AI will cause a catastrophe is particularly good.  Even within educated populations there is little understanding of how AI actually works or is built - this includes CEOs.  Every week, I spend time first-hand with execs and board members to specifically talk about future technology and roadmaps.  They do not understand AI.  They aren't qualified to speak on the topic.

AI & machine learning are a massive leap forward in our computing capacity and capability but it's far from smart.  To worry about it "taking over" isn't likely to be something even my grandchildren will have to worry about.  Just to get started, we'd need an entirely different kind of computing foundation.  It'd be like, when the Model T came out, people pitching a fit and having anxiety attacks about what could happen if a car could go 100 miles per hour or operate the throttle automatically. 

Remember Y2K?  Fair to say even the technical people can get wound around the axle of FUD.

The washing machine pegged women to it more than before it was invented and pervasive. History does not repeat itself, but rhymes 

[MrBirdman]

14 hours ago, PuroDiario said:

The washing machine pegged women to it more than before it was invented and pervasive.

That is ridiculous nonsense. Have you ever tried washing clothes without one? It takes days, not hours. 

[helix]

My worry with AI will be trying to discern what's fact or fiction , real or fake. The fraudsters and propagandists and bad actors will be unstoppable. Anyone can be impersonated  once hearing a person speak three words . Our BS filters wont be up to the task. 

[PuroDiario]

1 hour ago, MrBirdman said:

That is ridiculous nonsense. Have you ever tried washing clothes without one? It takes days, not hours. 

It’s facts simply. 

[MrBirdman]

3 hours ago, PuroDiario said:

It’s facts simply. 

Indeed, it is! Washing machines freed up a lot of time during the day for women and correlates with their increasing entry into the workforce. 

Will AI have a similar effect? Hard to say, I think it will vary by field. Uncertain times. 

[PuroDiario]

On 8/13/2023 at 6:53 AM, MrBirdman said:

Indeed, it is! Washing machines freed up a lot of time during the day for women and correlates with their increasing entry into the workforce. 

Will AI have a similar effect? Hard to say, I think it will vary by field. Uncertain times. 

You still are confused by taking time per unit “washed” vs total time. They simply increased the output and the frequency for the most part. First washing machine was invented in Germany in the 18th century. Just check the history of women rights and labor force participation in parallel to that. 

A more powerful tool, throughout history, has not freed up people dedicated to those tasks necessarily, but rather increased the output of those people and usually drove more time spent on those tasks. 
 

Eventually however, there is a huge labor replacement as the innovation through automation/industrialization displaces some of the old jobs. The old jobs usually migrate to ancillary and adjacent tasks. 

One could argue that innovation and new technologies are the reason for which labor participation and unit productivity have continued to raise globally. Thing is take a generation to take place. 

Again just facts. 

[MrBirdman]

On 8/13/2023 at 10:27 AM, PuroDiario said:

You still are confused by taking time per unit “washed” vs total time. They simply increased the output and the frequency for the most part. First washing machine was invented in Germany in the 18th century. Just check the history of women rights and labor force participation in parallel to that. 

A more powerful tool, throughout history, has not freed up people dedicated to those tasks necessarily, but rather increased the output of those people and usually drove more time spent on those tasks. 
 

Eventually however, there is a huge labor replacement as the innovation through automation/industrialization displaces some of the old jobs. The old jobs usually migrate to ancillary and adjacent tasks. 

One could argue that innovation and new technologies are the reason for which labor participation and unit productivity have continued to raise globally. Thing is take a generation to take place. 

Again just facts. 

Ok, so let's clarify that when talking about the invention of the washing machine, people are generally referring to the electric washing machine and it's widespread adoption beginning in the late 40's/early 50's. Yes, there were technically washing machines in the 19th century. However, they were all hand-cranked, cumbersome, and unaffordable to the vast majority of homes; they also saved on effort more than time. They were not widely adopted.

There was however a technological innovation in the 18th century that tied women down more in the home, but it wasn't the washing machine. It was the adoption of coal. It was less the commercial use, which was more an environmental hazard for cities, than it was domestic use. Coal was a cheap fuel for heating and cooking, but it's filthy. It releases oily smoke that stains clothes and coat interior spaces quickly and is very difficult to wash out. It creates an enormous amount of cleaning and far more than was required with using wood. Laundry went from being once a month to once a week.

Coal, in effect, trapped women in the home. It's apropos to this broader discussion. I am much less worried about AI’s direct economic impact than I am it's long-term effects on political stability, creativity, and innovation. Like the internet, AI could prove to be an immensely powerful tool that further pulls civilization apart at the seams. 

 

[Magnum Dongle]

As a software engineer, I am more aware of the technical side of AI than a lot of people even though I don't directly work with it right now. It also seems like while there are rapid developments being made in the field, it has become a buzz word in its own right. I think there will be quite a few advancements in fields in the near future (next decade) that are already ripe for automation due to it being a manual task that's more straightforward than not, such as agriculture, lawn care, industrial settings, etc.

AI in other fields opens a whole can of worms though that I don't think the general public really thinks of yet or is aware. Anything area that relates to ethics or can be complicated by bias is a dangerous place to implement AI. For AI to work, models have to be trained by data sets and algorithms have to coded by programmers, both of which even with the most careful observation can still include bias. Examples can already be seen where AI bots on Twitter took no time at all to become racist and sexist. AI facial recognition has higher margins of error for people of color. As long as bias still exists within society, AI will face challenges being implemented in anything that isn't straight forward with entirely objective steps in my opinion. I'm by no means an expert on AI. These are just all observations I have made from peripheral research and discussions with peers in my field. But it always makes for interesting conversations about the future! 

[Bill Hayes]

I'm an advertising/content writer and feel that my work opportunities have decreased significantly over the last 12 months, especially in the writing of websites with a UX slant. And the fact that I'm in an older demographic, which is a natural progression. I was writing a screenplay for a series for Netflix etc but will wait to complete it if things get regulated and can shop it around but I'm not holding my breath. I have seen a steady decline in jobs advertised for senior writers and wages have stagnated for the last 10 years, so it's probably a case of up-skilling and doing a lot of editing of AI copy for less but learning to do more of it more easily by using the AI systems. Although, I think my next move is more likely to be to use my other skills and go and do something I like for less. Luckily, I'm footloose and fancy free so Port Douglas diving instructor here we come. I feel for others in the industry who are mortgaged to the hilt with kids to school and feed. Albeit, the woke police might say that companies have to hire a % of over 50yo and I smugly sit in the corner or WFH, warm in the knowledge I can take a mental health day every week, mostly Mondays and Fridays, and have no fear of being sacked or I'll claim unfair dismissal. I think the biggest expanding market will be HR. Ha ha! I've chosen to look at it as an opportunity nonetheless. I also wonder, and maybe someone can jump in here, where is AI getting the data from and what measures can be taken to limit data derived from the internet and search engines etc. Cheers, interesting topic. Thanks.

[Bill Hayes]

Here's an article written by my last boss on how AI can be embraced in advertising/communications etc. Essentially creating bespoke content cheaply to sharply targeted audiences. Cheers, not quite entertainment writing but in the ball park.