Thoughts on artificial intelligence, creativity, and the SAG/AFTRA/WGA/NAVA panel at San Diego Comic-Con.
by Emma Smith, Assistant Editor
This year, a panel of voice actors and SAG/AFTRA’s chief negotiator sat down to talk “AI in Entertainment: The Performer’s Perspective.” The conversation was wide ranging, touching on artificial intelligence, labor, publicity rights, art, and what this all means for humanity. Linsay Rousseau, Zeke Alton, Tim Friedlander,[1] Ashly Burch, and Cissy Jones spoke from their perspectives as voice actors, and Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, the chief negotiator for SAG/AFTRA, provided a labor perspective on how artificial intelligence affects performers and is expected to affect them in the future.
The first and most important thing we all need to understand is that artificial intelligence is people.[2] This was a point made by many of the panel members. The behemoths in entertainment and tech love to talk about artificial intelligence as if it is an entity outside their control – Skynet, Deus Ex Machine, the Thunderhead, Ava, HAL, or even M3GAN. Whether you are predisposed to see it as a promise for or a threat to our future, it is incorrect to treat the development of artificial intelligence as completely beyond all human control.
It is humans who are choosing how to shape the use of these algorithms and programs. David Zaslav, CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery; Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters, Co-CEOs of Netflix; Bob Iger, CEO of Disney (holdings include ABC); Bob Bakish, CEO of Paramount Global (holdings include Paramount Pictures and CBS Entertainment Group); Kenichiro Yoshida, CEO of Sony Corporation (holdings include Sony Pictures); Brian Roberts, CEO of Comcast (holdings include Universal and NBC); Lachlan Murdoch, CEO of FOX; Andy Jassy and Jeff Bezos, respectively the CEO and the Founder/largest shareholder of Amazon; and Tim Cook, CEO of Apple – these men [3] are the ones making the choices about how to use A.I. in the entertainment industry.
Likewise, Mark Zuckerburg, CEO of Meta; Sundar Pinchai, CEO of Google; Elon Musk, Owner of X/Twitter (CEO Linda Yaccarino); [4] Shou Zi Chew, CEO of Tiktok; and Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI (parent company of ChatGPT) – these men are making the decisions about how A.I. will be developed and used. They are the ones scraping the internet for “training material.” They are the ones putting the “we can use all your data however, wherever, and forever” clause in their terms of service. When you used their services, you are “agreeing” to their decisions about how they can develop A.I., but how legitimate is that agreement when these companies lack transparency and require agreement to indistinguishable terms before use? In the vein of The Good Place, is participation in these services truly optional in modern life? How much of a choice do you really have when you click “accept”?
Don’t let these men lie to you. Know their names. Know that if they are telling you that A.I. and A.I. in their choice of form is inevitable, it is because that belief is useful to them.
By now, I expect most of us have some idea of what the studio heads are asking for in their negotiations with WGA and SAG/AFTRA. They want to be able to train AI to mimic writers’ work. They want to be able to take actors’ recorded vocals and use them to create artificial voices they can use across media. They want to be able to take actors’ faces and build digital models they can use across media. And they want to be able to use these pieces of each artist however and whenever they wish across all media, currently existing and later created, in perpetuity. They want to do all this and pay for only the initial recording or writing.[5] Do not forget that underneath this proposal is a truth, they need human work to make A.I. function. This is certainly not new, chatbots in their current form would not exist if not for the thousands of hours of painstaking human work on sites like Wikipedia, which they cannibalized for training and material.[6] Likewise, every program advertising the use of A.I. to generate a fun picture of you as a “renaissance painting” or “dystopian hero” first had to feed the program the individual work of millions of artists and photographers, uncompensated.[7]
When it comes to the members of SAG/AFTRA and WGA, it is not that they are against the use of A.I. As Cissy Jones said during the panel, “that genie is not going back in the bottle.” They see potential for A.I. to benefit writers and actors. Instead, they are asking that the implementation of the technology follows three simple principles: Consent, Control, and Compensation.
First, Consent. As Zeke Alton pointed out during the panel, there are two kinds of consent: passive consent and active consent. Active consent is when the person whose consent is sought must proactively consent to a specific action. With passive consent, the consent to actions is assumed unless the agreement specifically states otherwise. When negotiating with the studios, SAG/AFTRA and WGA have advocated for active consent. Writers and performers want to know what they are signing. They want it explained clearly and upfront. They don’t want the default expectation to be that they give away a piece of themselves to the unknown every time they show up for a job. They want the parameters of the use of their work negotiated every time that work is used.
In American law, informed consent generally requires the consent meet certain elements: (1) the person must have the mental capacity to consent, (2) the consent must be voluntary – not influenced by pressure or coercion, (3) the consent must be informed – adequate information must be provided regarding the risks and potential outcomes, and (4) the person must have adequate time to consider the information prior to consent.[8] This principle has been gradually eroded over time for consent to become the default. How many users who click “I agree” truly understand what they are giving away? And is that consent truly voluntary if there are no options that do not also include these terms?[9] Slowly but surely, we have become a world of wrap agreements, where we sign away our rights to our pictures, our writing, and our personal information any time we click “agree” on one of the user agreements for software, applications, and websites. Remember this consent issue affects the general public as much as it affects the creatives in the news. What parameters do we want for consent?
Second, Control. Actors, voice actors, and writers want to be able to control the use of their work, whether it be written, spoken, or visual. This does not mean that they are against all uses of A.I. In fact, they can see potential benefits of the use of A.I. for actors and voice actors. For example, imagine a production company could clone a voice for a portion of dialogue requiring a lot of screaming and save the voice actor from vocal strain. Perhaps writers could use a program like ChatGPT to bump them out of writer’s block.
What the artists who write, make, and perform our favorite entertainment want is to have a voice in how their work is used. If a voice actor records lines for an audiobook, should the company with the recording be able to use that for a commercial later without renegotiating? What if the commercial is for something the actor would never support? This is not a problem exclusive to media companies. During the panel, several of the actors talked about finding their voices online in fan mods. While they expressed overall appreciation for enthusiastic fans, they were perturbed by the extremes to which these mods sometimes went, including the creation of audio porn. They never got the chance to say “no” to this use of their voice, their self.[10]
Further do we truly want our entertainment created by Silicon Valley’s algorithms? Despite what tech and entertainment conglomerates like to argue, the unrestrained use of A.I. is not a benefit for consumers of entertainment. How many times have you rolled your eyes at a “movie by committee” or a show ruined by trying too hard for mass appeal? How often have you been bored by a show so heavily reliant on standard television tropes that it is predictable? Artificial intelligence programs are not truly creating, but rather regurgitating preexisting material in new forms. It is also worth remembering that algorithms reflect their creators and the material input. If they are trained on the full scope of available art and internet material, they will continue to reflect and perpetuate the systemic discrimination that threads through our history. We need innovative artists. Do you think an A.I. could or would come up with Get Out? Could a generated facsimile of Margo Robbie as Barbie make you cry?
Finally, Compensation. Sometimes we make the mistake of thinking of Hollywood artists only in terms of its most prominent members, but SAG/AFTRA is not just Brad Pitt and Zendaya and WGA is not just Aaron Sorkin and Sam Levinson. The vast majority of the members of these unions still hold day jobs and what they are seeking with their contract negotiations is not vast riches but a living wage. The average actor pay is $27.73 an hour, and they are not getting that for 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, as most acting jobs are short, contract jobs.[11] Meanwhile David Zaslav’s total compensation was $246 million in 2021 and $39 million in 2022, and Bob Iger is set to make the paltry sum of only $27 million in 2023.[12] Media companies and their CEOs are perfectly willing to sacrifice the livelihood of their workers at the feet of a competitive edge, another fraction of a percentage in yearly growth to make the shareholders happy.
These issues are not, of course, restricted to the entertainment industry or the United States. Income inequality has been growing for decades.[13] A.I. will touch all of us, in every industry. From coders to delivery drivers, A.I. can be used to assist us in our jobs or it can be used to spy on our work and even replace us. We must ask ourselves:
- What do we want a future with A.I. to look like?
- Do we want A.I. to work for us or on us?
- Is the use of A.I. going to benefit us or further increase the wealth of the 1% – those centimillionaires, billionaires, and centibillionaires?[14]
The entertainment industry, and business generally, is now global. American audiences tune in to Britain’s Sex Education while British ones watch Stranger Things. Netflix and Max have shows and movies in a variety of languages, filmed in Canada, Spain, Hungary, and more. American consumers wear clothes from Indonesia and use phones made in China. This means this issue must be addressed globally as well. The International Federation of Actors is coordinating the efforts of performers around the globe for fair contracts and just laws across oceans and borders. Workers’ power is collective. Like income and privacy, this idea has eroded over the years from attacks by those who have the most to fear from collective action. But don’t forget that the 40 hour work week, overtime, meal breaks, and more all came from workers banding together to demand better working conditions.[15]
So you may ask, is this all just doom and gloom or is there something you can do? The answer is yes, but it won’t necessarily be easy. Raise your voice – let your government(s) know that you care about your intellectual property, your privacy, and your voice. Advocate for laws that will require informed, voluntary consent be required for the use of our words, our voices, and our faces. Call your congressperson to talk about the Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act (H.R. 2331 – also known as the Algorithmic Accountability Act).[16] Vote for those who will take our rights seriously. Support the striking artists. Join the Fair Voices Campaign. Check news about the strike for misinformation by verifying at WGA.org or SAGAFTRA.org. Remember our power as workers is collective – organize and do not be afraid to stand against the powers that run corporations.
Consent. Control. Compensation. These are the requests the media companies deemed “unreasonable.” They want us to think we need them so badly that we forget they need us too. Instead, remember what Rorschach said in Watchmen, “I’m not locked in here with you. You’re locked in here with me.”[17]
Use your power. Use your voice. Own your shit.
…
Please take a moment to FOLLOW & SUBSCRIBE to our updated ComicsOnline social channels.
We appreciate your support!
INSTAGRAM – COMICSONLINE
BSKY – COMICSONLINE
YOUTUBE – COMICSONLINE
FACEBOOK – COMICSONLINE
TWITTER / X – COMICSONLINE
Join ComicsOnline for more exclusive interviews, comic book reviews, giveaways, and everything geek pop culture!
[1] Also co-founder and president of the National Association of Voice Actors. NAVAVOICES.org. Several other panel members have positions in or are members of NAVA.
[2] “Our entertainment is made of people!”
[3] Sorry, Barbie.
[4] No offense to Ms. Yaccarino, but who really thinks she is the decision maker at “X”? Or full offense if she chooses, she made her choice.
[5] As in most types of law, the exact requirements of consent vary across American and international jurisdictions.
[6] In American law, the answer is unfortunately “yes” as far back as 1996. See ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996)
[7] And if they were honest, pay the absolute smallest amount possible.
[8] “Wikipedia’s Moment of Truth,” Jon Gertner, New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/18/magazine/wikipedia-ai-chatgpt.html
[9] “Is Generative AI Stealing From Artists?” Bernard Marr, Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2023/08/08/is-generative-ai-stealing-from-artists/?sh=2bee64995d1e
[10] While in some cases, they were fortunately able to get companies like Levin Labs to take the material down, the volume of online material can make it borderline impossible to locate everything.
[11] Remember this average also includes the pay of high profile actors, meaning those lowest on the totem pole are making far less than that.
[12] 2021 pay was significantly higher due to a $203 million stock option grant.
[13] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/ (US specific)
[14] This is a real thing, and Jeff Bezos is one.
[15] Note to Stephen Amell – I will happily debate the merits of strikes as a negotiating tactic whenever and however you want.
[16] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2231
[17] Writer Alan Moore, artist Dave Gibbons, colorist John Higgins.
