If you’ve been keeping-up with the Writers Guild of America strike, ongoing since May 2, 2023, you know it’s still a long ways from resolution. The Guild is seeking a fairer share of streaming residuals. They also want AI such as ChatGPT limited to research or facilitating ideas and not as a means to replacing them.
But just how big a threat does AI pose for WGA writers? Many members think AI has its limitations but, nonetheless, could make inroads on some of their tasks.
While AI may pose a greater threat longterm as it progresses in sophistication (Paul McCartney reports he recently used AI to compose his latest song), I view AI as assisting, not replacing writers. It simply can’t replace the subtleties of the human mind, or what I like to call emotive intelligence.
New technologies like AI, however, do require adaptation, those using it replacing writers who don’t. It’s like calculators. They abound, but so do mathematicians. Fields requiring deep, often intuitive, knowledge, like psychology, sociology, etc, and most fields of medicine, will remain valid. I seriously doubt AI will replace engineers, or for that matter, your local plumber.
But back to the WGA. They deserve fair payment for what they do, providing the texts without which TV, movie, and theater couldn’t exist. Residuals are already paid to actors and, of course, the streaming moguls reap the far greater share of remuneration.
I’ve always felt that writers, in general, suffer a dismal fate when it comes to earnings. We hear about the 2% who make it to the highest tier. The vast majority of writers don’t give-up their day jobs.
Did you know that the average annual earnings by a New Yorker staff writer is a mere $54,000 annually?
I admire empathetic actors like Vincent D’Onofrio who see the unfairness and are lending their full support to WGA members.
–rj
Discover more from Brimmings: up from the well
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Brimmings: up from the well 