Effects of writers strike on Sci Fi & Fantasy genre

[Ryujin]

It wasn't me who raised the idea of "rules". I agree with you, there is no point in the AMPTP opposing a ban at this time, since currently AI cannot do the writers' job, and when it can they can simply pull a Vader and alter the deal. Which means it's also pointless for the writers to insist on it.

And, of course AI cuts both ways. It could potentially replace the studio execs just as easily as it could replace the writers, if not more so.

"Altering the deal" is also called breaking a contract, and comes with penalties.

 

[trappedslider]

I mean, it sounds like it was written by someone who fundamentally doesn't know what copyrights, trademarks, or patents are, and how they differ, so that's not a great start for a book that claims that as its entire premise.

Well, considering it takes place in a dystopian future

opening from the book:

We had just started over the bridge, toward my party, when the famously cheerful "Don't Jump" Ad clicked on. This had never happened to me before. The billboard's advertising systems scanned me—analyzing my age, my style, even my pulse—and calculated I was in need of a friendly reminder not to kill myself. Colorful, hopping bunnies sang at my feet, on a waist-high screen that arced the full length of the bridge wall. Traffic roared along eighty feet below. Above, the city dome was a lit diffuse, fading gray by the evening sky beyond.
I felt a little queasy. Jumpers had been growing increasingly common, but I'm sure a higher railing would have been more effective than a glib cartoon. I wasn't planning to kill myself. I had other things to concentrate on.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well, considering it takes place in a dystopian future

opening from the book:

No.

It appears that the writer literally doesn't understand what:

A) Patents.

B) Copyrights.

C) Trademarks.

Are. That's an absolutely terrible foundation for attempting to write a dystopian YA novel about those things. Being "dystopian" doesn't excuse complete ignorance. All quote your shows is that they're also not a good writer because bleh.

 

[Umbran]

It wasn't me who raised the idea of "rules". I agree with you, there is no point in the AMPTP opposing a ban at this time, since currently AI cannot do the writers' job, and when it can they can simply pull a Vader and alter the deal. Which means it's also pointless for the writers to insist on it.

No, it isn't pointless, in the sense that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

AI may not be ready for prime-time yet, but if you don't set up control early, it can be brought in whenever it works for the studio - which will then make instituting control a fight to remove AI, which would be harder, as the writers would be in a much worse bargaining position, as many of them would already have been replaced.

And, of course AI cuts both ways. It could potentially replace the studio execs just as easily as it could replace the writers, if not more so.

Yes, well, the WGA is bargaining over writing contracts. If the studios want to set up execubots, that's not the WGA's bailiwick.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Which means it's also pointless for the writers to insist on it.

It's not pointless because it'll save them a lot of headaches and idiotic executive schemes, for like, a decade or more.

Sure in the long term it might change, but that doesn't make it pointless.

 

[trappedslider]

No.

It appears that the writer literally doesn't understand what:

A) Patents.

B) Copyrights.

C) Trademarks.

Are. That's an absolutely terrible foundation for attempting to write a dystopian YA novel about those things. Being "dystopian" doesn't excuse complete ignorance. All quote your shows is that they're also not a good writer because bleh.

so laws can't change? I'm not sure what the exact time frame of the book is but given the fact that characters get hounded for illegal music downloads their great great great great grandparents did, it seems far enough that laws around those have changed considerably. Along with advances in tech like the eye shocking things.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

so laws can't change? I'm not sure what the exact time frame of the book is but given the fact that characters get hounded for illegal music downloads their great great great great grandparents did, it seems far enough that laws around those have changed considerably. Along with advances in tech like the eye shocking things.

They could, but it would be extremely stupid to use our terms if they meant something completely different, in your SF novel - and that seems to be exactly what has happened. It's just going to spread misunderstanding and incomprehension, frankly, re: legal issues that people absolutely should be worried about, but not at all for the reasons the book puts forth.

 

[Umbran]

so laws can't change?

They can, but that change would bear some explanation

But really, it is a habit of YA dystopias that the dystopic state actually makes no bloody sense if you look at it for more than like 5 minutes.

 

[Dausuul]

Read the bit you quote please dude lol. I didn't say anything about the quality of writing in shows, did I? That's all you.

I said "even mediocre" for a reason. People who think LLMs output anything worthwhile, creative writing-wise don't even know what mediocre writing looks like, let alone good writing. Most of them don't even recognise bad writing as bad.

No LLM is capable of writing anything extended at all that doesn't turn immediately into drivel, or anything even very short that is even mediocre. This is not going to change, because it is inherent to the way LLMs (as opposed to theoretical GP AIs) function.

They cannot understand context.
The cannot understand relationships between people or objects.
They cannot understand social values.
They cannot understand punchlines (nor humour as a concept, but this is where it shows up most).

This will not change.

Because they are Large Language Models. They are not thinking machines. They are put-one-word-in-front-of-another machines. People - including very senior Hollywood people are making category errors about what they are.

You are making a category error about what they are - you say you "know the limitations" but also claim "we are just at the beginning". No. That's a tautology. If you think we're "just at the beginning" of what LLMs can do in terms of creative writing, you are mistaken. You do not understand the limitations. We might be "just at the beginning" of AI in general (I'd say that was actually the 1970s, myself), but but it's GP AI which will make the difference with anything genuinely creative. It will also probably be terrifying.

And "give impetus to the technology", dude, what? How fast do you think tech moves? How many years do you think this stuff even was in the making? You think they're going to make shocking strides in LLMs in what, a month? 3 months? 6 at the outside? Absolutely they will not. In fact the discussions of LLMs show that if anything, they're basically stalled for at least a while - the large ones anyway (smaller, more specialized ones are making some headway, but they're not for creative writing). The strikes will be over, one way or another, for a very long time before even improvements in LLMs become evident.

Also, no, it doesn't "just need a bit of polishing and refining" if you use an LLM to create dialogue. They output complete drivel. Stuff that's worse than a blank page for an actual writer. That's just slew of cliches and obvious tropes in a row, but without any feeling, any real sense of who the characters are (because it can't think - though it can say have two generic archetypes and use bland, cliched lines for both), without any wit, without any intentional humour and so on. Don't confuse essentially using an LLM instead of rolling on a few charts to come up with a backstory for an NPC or details for a town or something with writing dialogue or detailed plots (and you must have detailed plots for shows, they're not RPGs) with writing a TV show.

Now, let's be clear - I'm just talking about for creative writing. LLMs have incredible potential for other fields, for good and ill. Just not for creative writing.

This, all of it.

The other day I was getting ready to offer a novel manuscript to an agent, and I needed a title. The working title I'd been using wasn't good enough; I had an idea for a real title, but I wasn't totally happy with that either.

"Hold on," thinks I. "I've got a synopsis of the book written up. Why don't I just plug it into ChatGPT and ask for ten suggested titles? I know it can't do serious writing, but surely a title isn't too much to ask. Even if it doesn't give me anything immediately usable, maybe something will spark an idea."

Nope. What it produced was absolute drek, little better than I could have done by randomly selecting words from the synopsis. There was not even the seed of a decent title. I went with my first idea and that was that.

ChatGPT is a talking dog. It is amazing that it talks at all. But it's never going to replace human fiction writers. (To be clear, I do believe that AI may one day replace fiction writers. But that AI will not be an LLM.)

 

[Umbran]

ChatGPT is a talking dog. It is amazing that it talks at all. But it's never going to replace human fiction writers. (To be clear, I do believe that AI may one day replace fiction writers. But that AI will not be an LLM.)

It is best not to hook thoughts on the general topic to particular implementation or technology. Like, if you want to control how fast people go on the road, regulations on buggy whips are maybe not the best approach.

Plus, "never" is a really long, long time. What LLM can do right now should not be considered indicative for all time.