Hi! I'm Insider entertainment correspondent Reed Alexander and I've been covering the actors' and writers' strikes that are grinding new TV shows and movies to a halt. AMA!

In this CNBC article it says that in the future we'll have an assembly line for a script for some TV show, AI would produce bad dialogue, and then there'd be the dialogue finisher. And then it would produce a bad premise, and there'd be the premise coordinator. You'd have many different writers' jobs — none of them is writer. And each one of these jobs would, theoretically, take less skill and pay less than the current job of a writer.

What do you think about this scenario? What can the writers do to avoid this or a similar scenario from becoming a reality in the future?

Interesting ideas floated in this story. I think the scenario presented here is highly speculative and impossible to predict with such granularity what kinds of roles there would be at some uncertain point in the distant future! I agree that there *could* be a situation in which AI tools generate scripts and a handful of writers are hired to improve that content/polish it up. But I don't believe that the situation described here necessarily will hold water in the near term, if only because the writers are fighting so hard to prevent that kind of situation from ever taking place.

In terms of your question about what they can do to prevent such a situation — I think that that assumes that's what the studios want too, and to be fair, the studios haven't said that they want to see a future anywhere near as dystopian and despondent as this situation suggests. In fact, the studios say they've already taken some measures to assuage the writers' fears (even though striking writers say those protections aren't going nearly far enough).

So everyone seems to agree we need our creative writers to power the entertainment ecosystem. As far as putting up guardrails against the doomsday scenario that one day, writers become an accessory to, essentially, computerized brains, and just do some light touching-up to the content generated by AI — that's the whole point of the strike in a nutshell. The writers will withhold their labor and refuse to go back to work, they've said, until they receive a deal that makes them feel no such threat like this is looming on the horizon.

Do these unions have sufficient funds to compensate their members with strike pay? If not, how are members getting by?

There are indeed strike funds for members of the unions, but they're reserved for people in really dire need. Not everyone can take advantage (nor does everyone need to), but those who seek funding need to be able to show why they need it. A lot of people are scrambling to find part-time or second jobs outside of the creative industry to make ends meet. It's a tough situation for all parties involved. The strikers are well aware of this, and in fact, their struggle now only has bolstered, I think, their conviction why they need to keep fighting so that they can work in an industry where they can sustain themselves just from their creative jobs.

This seems to have been a long fought battle that is still happening, are there any signals from the companies on giving into demands soon? If so what are the terms being discussed?

There aren't really signals that the companies are softening their positions at this point in time, though so much of the process of a union negotiation takes place behind-the-scenes, oftentimes in secretive sessions between the two sides, and there's a strange undercurrent of a language being spoken that can be quite different from what people see from the outside.
That said, this was always going to be a long slog. From the beginning, industry insiders believed this labor stoppage could go through late autumn, potentially the holidays (even though many are hoping it ends far sooner than that!). One hope was that, if SAG-AFTRA's membership (eg. unionized actors) joined the fight, that the tide could turn in the favor of the strikers and intensify the pressure so heavily on the studios that they'd be forced to come to the table sooner. Ultimately, of course, SAG-AFTRA did join the fight in July, though it doesn't seem like their arrival on the picket lines has greased the wheel of too expeditious a resolution so far. In other words, this is going to go on a while, is the general consensus.

Here's one indication of the mood. Earlier this month, the Writers Guild of America announced that its negotiating team met with top Hollywood CEOs like Warner Bros. CEO David Zaslav and Disney CEO Bob Iger, among others. The two sides met on August 22. It doesn't appear to have accelerated reaching an accords.

"We were met with a lecture about how good their single and only counteroffer was," WGA spokespersons told the media, adding that the discussion "wasn't a meeting to make a deal," in their view. "This was a meeting to get us to cave... We will see you all out on the picket lines so that the companies continue to see what labor power looks like."

Is it working?

Depends how we define if it's working! The most obvious way is to ask, did the strikers get what they want? So far, it seems like we're in for a long haul, but the strikers seem adamant not to give in till they get a deal they feel is strong and guarantees the vitality of their professions well into the future. We'll know when it's over if the labor stoppages resulted in the kinds of protections and deals that the Writers Guild of America and SAG-AFTRA feel are equitable and capable of accomplishing that goal.

But there are other clues that could give us a sense if parts of the strike are working or not. For instance, both guilds prohibit their members from promoting any new content they've worked on during the strike. It's tough because some actors are writers have had projects launch while the strike has been on, and they've been unable to go on the morning shows or promotional campaigns to drive awareness to these projects. That would be playing into the studios' hands, the guilds say.

In the short term, the strikes appear to have done little to derail the success of the recent blowout box office weekend debuts for films like "Barbie" and "Oppenheimer," so one could argue that the actors and writers withholding their star power didn't put many chinks in the studios' or distributors' armor during the premieres of those films. But some experts I talk to are telling me to look toward the new film releases in September and, if the strikes are still going on, in October, too.

These experts believe that films like "Barbie" and "Oppenheimer" received so much buzz and attention before the strikes went into effect. But they're confident that, without that same degree of attention and spotlight shone on film releases later this autumn, the studios could really be crushed at the box office. We'll have to wait and see.

But the bottom line is that, for now, it's too soon to know whether the labor stoppages are resulting in the kinds of successes the guilds are hoping to see in the bargaining room.

How do you see this ending realistically? Similar to 2007-2008? Or rather this new status quo being set with slightly better terms for writers , and why

So, taking off my journalist hat for a second and putting on my layman's observer hat who has no special knowledge of whether there's an end date in place or what the end game will look like (no one knows but the negotiators) — I feel on solid ground saying I think this will go on for some time. Whether that means October, November, December, or even January, as one large streaming executive recently told me they believe will be the case — that's anybody's guess and depends on the language being spoken by all sides at the negotiating tables. But I don't think we are imminently approaching an end to this, no.

I think it will end with deals that both the WGA and SAG-AFTRA feel satisfied with, because they've made clear they won't accept anything less.

But I look at the long game beyond these strikes. The entertainment industry is transforming more rapidly than anyone can imagine, which I've written about here: https://www.businessinsider.com/hollywood-writers-strike-over-technology-ai-netflix-streaming-studios-2023-7

The forces driving this transformation may be temporarily slowed by the deals that the guilds will get, but they won't be repelled. For tech investors in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street, the allure of Hollywood's tech gold rush is too great to resist. I think strikers will win big victories in the short term, yes — but in 15, 20 years, will those victories still protect them? I think there will always be strong appreciation for the actors' and writers' craft, or anything entertainment-related that brings viewers joy, but I think Hollywood needs to understand that it's changing quickly and sometimes in subtle ways.

The fight doesn't end with these deals being ratified, and in some ways never will end. There needs to be an acceptance that this is part of a much longer story that's being told — the story of how Hollywood is transforming faster than most of its denizens want it to.

is their fight against ai realistic or it is something they don't fully understand?

Interesting question. I think there's a lack of understanding on all sides about the technology, and often in these fights, a lot of misinformation and miscommunication can enter the chat (no pun intended/so to speak!).

For instance, actors have recently been very concerned by the idea that their likenesses could be digitally replicated and "owned" by studios or streamers, meaning that those production companies could reuse their images without paying them. The members of the AMPTP — the consortium of studios, streamers, and production companies that are negotiating against the actors and writers — however, have denied that that's part of their plan at all.

Nevertheless, in spite of their denials, this fear has become something of an urban legend, and has unnerved a lot of creative types.

At the root of their worries, I would say, are valid fears — the same fears that anyone who is facing the incursion of AI, tech, and automation is likely feeling right now. The drumbeat of technological transformation has been resounding across all industries since the beginning of the 21st century, and quite frankly, since the beginning of time. So yes, there are reasons to be worried.

But I think in a labor dispute, a lot of the issues can become somewhat theoretical/hypothetical. Whilst it's important to have protections in place, do I think that all of these fears are necessarily reflected in the day-to-day practice of what goes on in Hollywood? Personally speaking, I think some may be magnified right now.

Has anything surprised you about the strike?

To be honest, very little has surprised me so far. It was expected that this would drag on for sometime, which it is, and that both sides were deeply entrenched, which they are. One thing that might have surprised me personally was the conviction that the strikers are bringing to the picket lines. In the case of the Writers Guild, we're several months into this, and their members are still actively picketing and maintaining their momentum all across the studio lots in Los Angeles. The actors too are energized, but they've more recently joined the fight, so that's to be expected. I suppose if anything, the continual resolve of those who are withholding their labor has been impressive to watch and might have defied my expectations if only because of the length. Otherwise, I think a lot of this is playing out as expected.

While I totally support their strike, how do they expect to accurately evaluate & incorporate AI issues or its consequences when the tech is relatively new, at least in the mainstream? It seems risky to try to get assurances from studios about a technology that most people have no idea how it works or what its potential ramifications are.

Good points. Both sides are really in unchartered, speculative territory here. The WGA (and to a lesser extent, SAG-AFTRA unionized actors) are really keen to get as many protections as they can around the incursion of technologies like AI into the creative process. Most writers I've spoken with so little to any value at all in these tools, so as far as their potential to provide help down the line or somehow elevate the creative process — most would flatly deny that that could even enter the realm of reality.

The studios thus far have said this, in their most recent proposed deal (which the WGA decided not to take, so the strike continues and bargaining is still underway):

"The Companies [eg. the studios] confirm that because [Generative Artificial Intelligence] is not a person, it is not a 'writer' or 'professional writer'... therefore, written material produced by GAI will not be considered literary material under this or any prior" deal.

"The proposal provides important safeguards to prevent writers from being disadvantaged if any part of the script is based on GAI-produced material, so that the writer's compensation, credit and separated rights will not be affected by the use of GAI produced material."

Sounds OK, right? Well, those on strike point to investments that studios, streamers, and networks are actively making in developing AI teams to study how this tech could impact creative development, and fear that the process could be a runaway train. Both sides aren't really in lockstep with one another at all on this issue.

Seems like it's in the studios' interests to obfuscate or downplay the practicality of AI tools, which would play right into writers' denial of the tools' usefulness. Regardless of what the WGA knows about current AI tech or what it may become in the very near future, it appears they are arguing over where to plant a bag of seedlings, with scant idea of what those seedlings will grow into. I don't see any practical way to build legally-binding walls around this tech with our current knowledge of its potential.

You make some very good points, and I think that speaks to my feeling that transformation is inevitable in the industry and no amount of bargaining can really stop it. But that's also why the guilds come back to the bargaining table every few years to renegotiate. Once we have more information about how this tech can be deployed/what its efficacy will be, they'll reassess. But in 100 years, in 200 years, in 300 years — when you start talking about massive timescales like that, versus 3-5 years, will there be anything remotely similar to the job of the Hollywood writer today? Very tough to say.

That said, we'll likely have very different concerns to worry about at that point in time anyway!

What is the realistic compromise you see happening? How soon do you see this happening? How much of a delay on shows and movies do you think this will cause?

I think there are going to have to be big moves on the following:

- Residuals, particularly for streaming shows - that's a massive sticking point for writers and actors

- For writers, some protections around the rise of the "mini room," which they say is costing jobs and boxing people out

- I'm really not sure how the AI issue will end up getting resolved. It's so complex.

- Some adjustments to how the streamers release audience metrics (which right now, aside from ranking whatever show is most popular at the time, they generally don't) — but that's going to have an impact on bonuses or compensation for those involved in hit projects, so there will likely be some movement there, I think

I think this could go well into the fall, but let's see. A lot of people are hoping it ends sooner, but in my core, I feel all sides are so far apart.

As far as delay of shows, I think if the strike drags on a quarter of the year (which in the case of the writers, it already has), that sets production back a quarter. So let's say, my guess would be that when this is over, the development of new content has been suspended to the tune of 4-6 months?

That said, a lot of the streamers, networks, and studios stockpiled a ton of content in advance of the strike to get through this period that's kind of like a dry desert in Hollywood, so consumers will still have plenty of new releases to watch. I also think there will be massive demand when this is over to floor the gas on the development of new content. And that goes for the studios/streamers which will be hungry for fresh material, and for the writers/actors who will be eager to get back to work.

Are studios actually considering replacing writers with AI?

This is a really nuanced question, not least of which because studios would perhaps be more prone to deploying AI in certain kinds of situations, and less so than others.

For instance, and I'm just throwing out hypotheticals here: Write a script for a short commercial using AI? Maybe. Write a script for a two hour spy thriller, rom-com, or future blockbuster movie? Seems tougher. So there are shades of grey here in terms of how such tech could be utilized.

Ultimately, though, I would say it doesn't come down to being quite so stark — the studios value the work that writers do, but writers worry that there are conceivable situations in which a studio could create a script (what we'd call original "IP") using AI, and then just simply hire a writer or two to edit that script and polish it. And that could mean much greater competition among writers for far fewer jobs, further putting pressure on the landscape for writers as it stands now. (It's already quite tough to break in and make a living.)

It's unclear which studios would consider such an approach — but the writers are keen to ensure that such an eventuality wouldn't come to pass. It's hard to imagine that AI won't play a greater role in the coming years in content creation, since it's inexpensive and does things instantaneously, but the writers are working to defend their craft from such pressures. —RA