Letters to the Editor: The writers' strike isn't just about AI — and AI threatens more than writers

Letters to the Editor: The writers’ strike isn’t just about AI — and AI threatens more than writers

A WGA striker's picket sign reads: Wrote ChatGPT this

May 15, 2023 11:45 AM PT

To the editor: The writers’ strike is not about AI, it is about what all strikes are about: survival. The promise of capitalism — that the best will rise to the top and all lives will be improved as a result — is as reliable as a job reference on a George Santos résumé. Capitalism, like feudalism, is intended to benefit only the few at the top.

For now, we need two things: legislation to ensure that AI-generated material is clearly labeled as such, and a commitment from actors (I am a SAG/AFTRA member), teamsters, IATSE members (crew) and directors to refuse work on any AI-generated projects. There are no halfway steps here.

Bart Braverman, Indio

To the editor: It’s not just in Hollywood that writers are devalued. I’ve been a freelancer for decades, regularly subjected to insultingly low or no pay rates by magazine, newspaper and journal editors who fill their pages with practically free content. Some sheepishly tell me they’d love to pay contributors but their publication’s policy doesn’t allow it. Yet I know they don’t work for nothing while I’m expected to.

Over the years I’ve been fortunate to earn some decent pay for my writing, but those times are exceedingly rare. Fortunately I’ve been able to make a living as a writing trainer as I continue to write. Of course, I completely sympathize with the demands of the WGA strikers and hope they’ll be able to win out in the short or long run.

The 17th century poet John Sheffield wrote, “Of all those arts in which the wise excel, nature’s chief masterpiece is writing well.” It’s really a societal shame that the art of writing well is regarded and compensated less and less these days.

Tom Stapleton, Glendale

To the editor: There is certainly a tidal shift going on as artificial intelligence grows ever more capable of doing jobs now held by people. What isn’t being discussed enough, however, is the existential risk any increasingly powerful AI presents to the human race. We need to start worrying about this because the odds are not with us.

AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky put it best: “Asking about the effect of machine superintelligence on the conventional human labor market is like asking how U.S.-Chinese trade patterns would be affected by the moon crashing into the Earth. There would indeed be effects, but you’d be missing the point.”

David Reskin, Los Angeles