Related Articles
Revolt against the machines began at Swingers. And at Bob’s Big Boy, where for weeks Drew Carey picked up the tab. Members of the Writers Guild of America, or WGA, met at both Los Angeles-area diners frequently during their 148-day strike, which hinged on protecting Hollywood’s scribes from being overrun by the march of artificial intelligence.
Members of the WGA were just a small part of the resistance. There were others. The Screen Actors Guild—American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, or SAG-AFTRA, soon joined them on the picket lines, together forming a formidable uprising against the perceived threat of AI.
What each union was seeking was different. Writers wanted to make sure AI couldn’t be trained on their work or manipulate it without their say-so; actors wanted guardrails on how the technology could be used to recreate their performances. Both parties ended up setting a tone for how labor movements in the future could push back against encroaching automation.
“It is interesting that the Hollywood strikes became the highest-profile example of workers resisting AI in 2023,” says Brian Merchant, author of this year’s Blood in the Machine: The Origins of the Rebellion Against Big Tech, a book about the Luddite movement.
At the same time, he adds, the unions’ confrontations with studios came at a time when the boom in AI technology was causing a lot of folks to be critical of Silicon Valley and new tools primed to take their jobs. Originally, the WGA’s AI stipulations didn’t seem like they’d be hotly contested demands—then they became a central issue. “Workers and unions have been fighting automation and certain uses of AI in the workplace for years, of course, but the Writers Guild were among the first to do so after the rise of OpenAI and ChatGPT,” Merchant says. Ultimately, it was the first big face-off between humans and AI, he adds, and “the humans won.”
Their timing couldn’t have been better. Throughout 2023, many trades and professions, from painters to coders and beyond, found themselves vulnerable to being replaced by machine learning. IBM’s CEO estimated out loud that some 7,800 jobs at the company could be done by bots in the next five years. A Goldman Sachs report from late March estimated nearly 300,000 jobs globally could be affected by automation. Radiologists, journalists (gulp), tax preparers—everyone, it seemed, spent at least part of 2023 wondering if robots were coming for their jobs.
That, in turn, led to increased interest in what protections organized labor could provide workers, even as some unions, like the United Auto Workers and Teamsters, seemed to fall behind on addressing AI’s potential to encroach on jobs. In a recent piece for Harvard Business Review, MIT engineering professor Yossi Sheffi argued short-sightedness on these issues affects both workers and employers, since disengaged staffers could become part of a workforce that’s even less prepared if and when automation comes to their industry.
Most PopularGearThe Top New Features Coming to Apple’s iOS 18 and iPadOS 18By Julian ChokkattuCultureConfessions of a Hinge Power UserBy Jason ParhamGearHow Do You Solve a Problem Like Polestar?By Carlton ReidSecurityWhat You Need to Know About Grok AI and Your PrivacyBy Kate O'Flaherty
Sheffi wrote the piece in September, when both SAG and WGA were deep into their strikes. At the time, he noted that other industries should “take to heart” what was happening in Hollywood. “Resolving these issues [between the actors and writers and the studios] will take time, but at least in this case, the parties have started the process before AI has become an industry mainstay,” he wrote. “But other unions don’t seem to be facing up to the ways technological advances will change jobs.”
As the advance of AI marched on throughout 2023, it became clear that unions were only part of the resistance. Authors, worried that large language models had been trained using their books, filed a handful of lawsuits against OpenAI, Meta, Microsoft, and others. So did visual artists, against Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and more. None of those suits has reached any kind of conclusion, and some argue copyright claims aren’t the way to stop the bots from absorbing creative work, but the suits did turn the courts into yet another battlefield, in addition to picket lines, on which humans pushed back against AI incursion.
By the end of 2023, governments entered the fray. In early November, US president Joe Biden signed an executive order attempting, among other things, to curtail AI’s impact on human work and provide “federal support for workers facing labor disruptions, including from AI.” Unions, including SAG, praised the move, which came as world leaders were heading to the UK for the AI Safety Summit, where, as my colleague Will Knight wrote, they sought to contain the threats of machine learning while also harnessing its power.
That has always been the tricky part. From weavers to writers, lots of people use machines to improve their work. Automation helps! As AI boosters will tell you, the technology can cultivate new forms of creativity. People can write books alongside AI, create new styles of visual art, build infinite Seinfeld generators. Some Hollywood writers use the tools for basic brainstorming tasks. Fear comes in when brainstorming evolves into a studio head asking ChatGPT to write a new movie about a cat and a cop who are best friends. No scribes needed.
Currently, chatbots can’t whip up fully formed scripts, or novels, or Caravaggios, but the tech is evolving so quickly it feels all but imminent. When Sam Altman was briefly ousted from OpenAI in November, there was all kinds of speculation that the company was developing its tech too quickly, that its for-profit ambitions had overwhelmed its altruistic intentions. Altman is now back at the head of his company, but whether or not OpenAI is still evolving too quickly remains to be seen. But Microsoft does now have a nonvoting board seat.
Funny thing about that: Microsoft actually offered jobs to OpenAI staffers during that brief period when Altman was voted off the island. So did Salesforce. OpenAI employees all but told Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff to go screw, but the sentiment stood as a reminder that while AI is poised to take many jobs, it also creates jobs in AI. The “learn to code” crowd has all new ammo. Even Biden’s executive order was clear about the fact that the US government wanted to attract the best and brightest in the field.
Most PopularGearThe Top New Features Coming to Apple’s iOS 18 and iPadOS 18By Julian ChokkattuCultureConfessions of a Hinge Power UserBy Jason ParhamGearHow Do You Solve a Problem Like Polestar?By Carlton ReidSecurityWhat You Need to Know About Grok AI and Your PrivacyBy Kate O'Flaherty
But that’s job creation, not job displacement. New technologies create jobs all the time, but with AI, some of those jobs pay pennies. What’s more, AI can also ask you to train it to do your job before picking up your tools. Going forward, the likelihood that AI will displace many entry-level jobs while creating a few highly skilled gigs seems high. The biggest questions in AI right now nearly all revolve around what these machines are learning from people, whether it’s human skill or human bias.
Journalism requires a modicum of skill and an ability to tamp down bias—and AI has proven terrible at writing news. Going into 2023, I thought perhaps I would be old and retired before AI came for my gig. Then Keanu Reeves (of all people) told me I was dreaming and that AI could replace me before my next birthday. “The people who are paying you for your art would rather not pay you,” he said. “They’re actively seeking a way around you, because artists are tricky. Humans are messy.”
Six months after Reeves said that, SAG, the union of which he is a member, went on strike to make sure studios couldn’t find a way around him. (As if.) When the strike ended, as with the WGA resolution, many questions remained: Could studios be trusted to self-regulate? Would actors be able to loan out AI doubles of themselves for jobs that would have gone to human performers? Many of those questions won’t be answered for a long time. Perhaps the answers won’t come soon enough.
