The recent Writer’s Guild of America (WGA) strike was one of the biggest strikes that Hollywood has ever seen. It lasted longer than the 1981 WGA strike, which took 96 days before a deal was reached over writer residuals from sales in videocassettes and paid TV. 

In 1988, the longest writers’ strike lasted 154 days and took place in 1988, when some participants lost their homes in a contentious stretch of Time that reportedly cost the industry $500 million. Today’s writer’s strike was widely different from those of the past, as some of the main points for striking are rooted in modern streaming services’ business models, which typically promote shows with far shorter seasons than was the norm for scripted network television shows in the past.

The WGA has researched the effect of streaming on minimum rates for writers, arguing studios have used the streaming transition to “cut writer pay and separate writing from production, worsening working conditions for series writers at all levels.”

AI was also a major concern for writers and actors alike, with SAG-AFTRA voicing concerns that such technology could take away work from actors, especially background players. SAG-AFTRA called for AI permissions guidelines and fair compensation from studios seeking to use an actor’s likeness for creative work.

According to a report by a Hollywood reporter, Chris Keyser, co-chair of the WGA’s negotiating committee, stated that they were more powerful than ever with SAG by their side.

Concluding the strike

The strike officially ended last week, 148 days after it began. When the guild’s 11,500 members walked off the job on May 2, AI was a hot topic, but as the work stoppage continued, the looming specter of AI becoming everyone’s new coworker grew. Everyone from authors to architects began to face existential questions about how technology could encroach on their lives and livelihood.

The terms on paper are a coup for writers. Beyond putting up guardrails to ensure AI can’t replace script writers outright, they also curb the more likely scenario that writers would be asked to adapt or edit something written by a large language model or tool like ChatGPT for less pay than producing an original work, possibly without their knowledge.

A report by Wired shared a statement by Matthew Sag, a professor of law and AI at Emory University. He remarked that the issue here is that ‘AI-generated material can’t be used to undermine a writer’s credit or separate rights. The major concern of the writers was that studios would use AI to dilute the credit/compensation due to writers working on their shows. This agreement addresses that concern and acknowledges the reality that many writers will use AI tools to accelerate their workflow. Leaving the writers with a genuine choice is a significant victory for the WGA.

Landmark for AI

The future simplicity hinted at in the terms of the WGA deal is one in which machines and humans work together. This is a landmark since the deployment of generative AI. From an artist’s perspective, the agreement does not villainise AI. Instead, it left the door open for continued experimentation, whether generating amusing names for a Tolkienesque satire or serious collaboration with more sophisticated versions of the tools in the future. 

This open-minded approach contrasts with some of the hysteria reactions to AI.