Strike While the Irony is Hot
It heartens me to see the actors striking along with the writers (who've been striking since May). This is a big battle for creatives against what amounts to the tyranny of the studios (themselves heavily backed by Wall Street and otherwise owned by major corporate players).
Much of it is tied to the challenges AI presents to creatives, of course. The studios are all but licking their chops at the idea that they can rely on AI to cough up scripts for them, and can digitize actors' faces to give them lifetime access to their images for a one-time payment (currently leveled at extras, but easily applicable to all actors).
It's like they're facing the peril of the corporate AI revolution earlier than the majority of others, and so they're striking to try to negotiate some job security for themselves.
The entertainment unions are pretty strong and high profile, relative to so many other unions. At least with the actors, they have the benefit of having a bunch of good-looking and rich celebrities among their ranks, which gives SAG-AFTRA more punching power than a lot of less glamorous unions.
That's a point in their favor, but I worry that the allure of AI for the studios is just too great for even this Hollywood strike to come out favorably for the creatives.
There's too much money to be made leaning into the AI churn-and-burn creation machine to turn back. It's like when robotics first appeared on corporate assembly lines -- the trend is always toward adoption of the robotic as a means of cranking out product faster, and without pay. Companies always jettison the problematic human element when they can get away with it, and reap the benefit of automation.
The studios are in that same place, and this strike is emblematic of that push. The tycoons behind the studios want more money (and, although not said out loud, certainty of profit -- given how many bombs they've been putting out there, that has to be looming for them), and AI is what they think'll get them that.
Look how risk-averse the Hollywood system has become -- they've relied more and more on remakes and retreads of older intellectual property, rather than trying anything new. The regurgitation of prior endeavors has taken up a larger focus in Hollywood. They want to find something that works (or worked before, so, because they're unimaginative, they to remakes in hopes of recapturing that magic).
All of this points to AI not being something that Hollywood will banish, but rather, will embrace.
I support the striking writers and actors in spirit (they're all far, far richer than me, so all I can offer is moral support), but I also watch this with trepidation, because I think there's an AI wall that the studios will not willingly abandon.
Who knows, maybe they want to crush the unions in a protracted siege and use that as an excuse to deploy AI more directly as the "solution" to the "problem" of human creatives.
I'm watching this strike with more concern than hope.
Much of it is tied to the challenges AI presents to creatives, of course. The studios are all but licking their chops at the idea that they can rely on AI to cough up scripts for them, and can digitize actors' faces to give them lifetime access to their images for a one-time payment (currently leveled at extras, but easily applicable to all actors).
It's like they're facing the peril of the corporate AI revolution earlier than the majority of others, and so they're striking to try to negotiate some job security for themselves.
The entertainment unions are pretty strong and high profile, relative to so many other unions. At least with the actors, they have the benefit of having a bunch of good-looking and rich celebrities among their ranks, which gives SAG-AFTRA more punching power than a lot of less glamorous unions.
That's a point in their favor, but I worry that the allure of AI for the studios is just too great for even this Hollywood strike to come out favorably for the creatives.
There's too much money to be made leaning into the AI churn-and-burn creation machine to turn back. It's like when robotics first appeared on corporate assembly lines -- the trend is always toward adoption of the robotic as a means of cranking out product faster, and without pay. Companies always jettison the problematic human element when they can get away with it, and reap the benefit of automation.
The studios are in that same place, and this strike is emblematic of that push. The tycoons behind the studios want more money (and, although not said out loud, certainty of profit -- given how many bombs they've been putting out there, that has to be looming for them), and AI is what they think'll get them that.
Look how risk-averse the Hollywood system has become -- they've relied more and more on remakes and retreads of older intellectual property, rather than trying anything new. The regurgitation of prior endeavors has taken up a larger focus in Hollywood. They want to find something that works (or worked before, so, because they're unimaginative, they to remakes in hopes of recapturing that magic).
All of this points to AI not being something that Hollywood will banish, but rather, will embrace.
I support the striking writers and actors in spirit (they're all far, far richer than me, so all I can offer is moral support), but I also watch this with trepidation, because I think there's an AI wall that the studios will not willingly abandon.
Who knows, maybe they want to crush the unions in a protracted siege and use that as an excuse to deploy AI more directly as the "solution" to the "problem" of human creatives.
I'm watching this strike with more concern than hope.
No comments have been added yet.
