The role of artificial intelligence is a new concern for
Hollywood writers and actors.
>> Yeah, no, I'm not interested in directing a [BLEEP] movie for
a robot, right?
No.
>> Speaking to his audience earlier this month,
Late Night host Seth Meyers shared his thoughts on the looming strike.
>> I also feel very strongly that what the writers are asking for
is not unreasonable.
And as a proud member of the guild, I'm very grateful that
there is an organization that looks out for the best interests of writers.
>> Tens of thousands of writers and members of the Writers Guild of
America have officially gone on strike after the negotiations
with production studios did not really get to where they needed to get to.
Now, the studios and the writers' union ended up experiencing
a breakdown in negotiations and the board of directors for
the East and West Coast divisions of the WGA Writers Guild of
America voted unanimously to call a strike effective today.
So today's the first day of that strike.
And if you're curious what the sticking points are,
what is it that they could not reach an agreement on, well, the main issues
pertain to how streaming services have disrupted the entertainment industry and
how the implementation of AI technology will further disrupt the industry.
More on that in the next video.
>> The main issue is streaming.
78% of households now subscribe to at least one streaming service, but
the writers say those series paid less and have fewer episodes.
Ten years ago, the WGA says,
a third of its TV writers worked at the minimum salary.
It's now half.
But studio producers say their budgets are already stretched and
they can't make a profit by paying more when revenues are falling.
Also playing a role in the labor talks, AI.
The writers want assurances that studios won't use artificial intelligence
like ChatGPT to generate new scripts.
>> The role of artificial intelligence is a new concern for
Hollywood writers and actors.
>> Yeah, no, I'm not interested in directing a [BLEEP] movie for
a robot, right?
No.
>> I think the most clear cut part of this that I am 1000% in favor of is the writers
pushing back against the implementation of AI, wanting actual regulations and
rules to be implemented when it comes to the implementation of AI.
The other part of it, which is the disruption that was introduced to
the entertainment industry as a result of these streaming services,
is a lot more difficult.
Because, and let me just be clear, I 100% support the workers here
because they are obviously making less money and they deserve to get paid more.
However, at the same time, it's difficult to figure out how it's gonna work
because of just how disruptive streaming services happen to be.
There's also the issue of residuals.
So, as CNN writes, writers have traditionally gotten residuals when
a show they wrote is sold to run again in syndication or on basic cable.
But they're unlikely to get meaningful residuals, if any at all, when they create
original content for streaming services as contracts stand today.
The Guild was fighting in these negotiations for
some kind of ongoing compensation for streaming services.
And I do have some numbers in regard to how much these streaming services
have made.
For instance, Netflix made almost $5 billion in net income in 2022 alone.
And so, the question is, how do you figure out a way to, I guess,
redistribute that wealth in a way that makes sense?
Because this is a different way of earning revenue.
It is different from the advertising that comes along
with the content that TV writers put out.
So, Cenk, I'm curious what you think.
>> Yeah, [COUGH] so, guys, this is a super complicated issue, and so
I'm gonna break down for you what the problems with handling this cleanly is.
But first, I want to be clear.
I support the writers.
And in case you're concerned about bias, I do have a little bit of bias, I guess,
in both directions.
I run a digital media company, but I was also a TV writer.
That's why I came to LA in the first place.
And my bias also is that the number one most important
thing to make a movie or TV show work is the writers.
I've always thought that was the most obvious thing in the world.
Who cares what the actors and the director and
the executives do if you didn't write a good script?
It's all pointless if you didn't, right?
>> 1000%.
>> And not just because I was a writer, I was a writer briefly, right?
Just for a couple of years.
But not because of that,
because it's logical that they're the most important part of this exercise.
The second reason why the writers are right is that fact that video showed you
in the middle there.
It's overwhelming.
In ten years, they went from 33% of the writers being at minimum salary to now
50% being at minimum salary.
There's no question they're getting screwed in that sense, okay?
So now, the complexity here.
So, number one, yeah, Netflix made $5 billion, but we tell you on the show
all the time when it's income versus profits, and that is income revenue.
It is not profits.
So the traditional media companies are still very, very, very profitable, but
a lot of the streaming services, they make a ton of money.
They've got an unbelievable amount of investment money, but
they have not yet turned a profit, a lot of them.
So they say, well, how am I gonna pay you from a profit I don't make?
Well, I actually have an answer to that.
Take it from the other people involved.
So I know that actors and directors aren't gonna like that, but sad day, right?
So it's not like you don't just have to add to the budget.
You could take from other parts of the budget.
So, by the way, now, before I get actors and directors and
writers all fighting each other for a piece of the pie,
there's another giant piece of the pie, and that's executives.
>> Yes! >> And nobody ever,
ever, ever talks about, hey, we're not profitable, so
should we cut the executives pay, right?
So that's a huge issue.
And in terms of artificial intelligence, that's one's also complicated.
They're gonna go to artificial intelligence, whether we like it or not.
I have a lot to say on that, but mainly that we should just put a spotlight on
the ones that are made with artificial intelligence.
And then if you want to watch it, you watch it.
But if you're grossed out by it, don't watch it and
support writers who write real shows.
I have more nuance on that, but Ana.
>> Yeah, so, for instance, David Zazlav.
>> Yeah, he's the head of Warner Bros Discovery Channel.
>> Exactly, so I can't even believe this, but he was paid $250 million last year.
$250 million in just one year.
So when you talk about the executives,
I think that you make a really good point there.
>> So guys, Warner Brothers Discovery is now this giant amalgamation.
It includes CNN.
So they are incredibly profitable.
For example, CNN last year was really despondent cuz they only
made $900 million in profit.
In profit, okay?
And so they're doing all these different cuts.
And is actually part of those cuts that people don't talk about
the financial side of it.
They got rid of some of their expensive anchors, and certainly,
CNN Plus, etc.,cuz they're trying to cut costs.
Why are they trying to cut costs?
Well, number one, because they took on tremendous debt.
Well, whose fault is that?
That's the executive's fault, right?
And second of all,
that's because they paid their executives $250 million a year, right?
And so don't tell me you don't have money.
On the other hand, there are plenty of companies that have never turned a profit,
but by the way, they also pay their executives a lot of money.
>> Yeah, they do.
That's right. >> Yeah.
>> So I think you're right.
There are places where they can, I guess,
in the context of the entertainment industry,
redistribute the wealth to ensure that the writers that make this content possible
in the first place are compensated fairly for the work that they do.
Now, CNN also reports that although many streaming services are not yet profitable,
they provide the studios with a source of income from subscribers' monthly fees,
making them less dependent on advertising revenue that might be lost from
the need to air reruns on broadcast or cable channels.
And so, the streaming services also have a pretty massive stockpile of older
content that could keep their customers satisfied as this strike continues.
And I'm really curious to see how that plays out, because part of what
makes strikes so effective is how it does away with either a service or a product,
in this case, that the consumers look forward to, the consumers want.
And when the executives of these studios are unable to produce that content as
a result of the strike, well, that makes the strike a lot more powerful and
it gives them more urgency in coming up with a solution to make the writers happy.
So I don't know how that library of content is gonna come into play.
It might not have an effect at all.
The content that is likely to have the biggest impact or
experience the biggest impact happens to be late night shows and things like that.
So, any thoughts on that, Cenk?
>> Yeah, so look, guys, the writers want more on residuals,
on reruns and stuff, but that's kind of an ancient model.
And so, I think now we're in the weeds of their strategy.
And I don't know well enough to be able to criticize from the outside.
I'm just telling you that we just don't live in the old world.
I know, like this town LA that we're in, built on residuals.
Forget the writers, although some of the writers are super rich.
By the way, that's why the writers can oftentimes have much longer strikes,
cuz they have the economic wherewithal to be able to withstand a strike that long.
Now, as you saw there, 50% of them are at the minimum.
So don't make assumptions that they're all rich, right?
But actors, directors, etc.
There's 10 million, $20 million houses all over LA, paid for by residuals.
But those days are gone.
That was the old days where Friends and Seinfeld would come.
They'd get to 100 episodes and then rerun them endlessly on all the other channels.
And every time they ran them, people would get checks.
And the higher up they were, the bigger the check they would get.
Well, the world just doesn't work that way anymore.
So we've got to come up with a new model.
But that's details.
So in terms of the AI stuff, guys, half the stuff we watch now is half AI already.
Here's what I mean by that.
Any of you watch Emily in Paris?
>> No. >> Okay, I did, I did.
Okay, I kinda liked it.
It was [CROSSTALK]. >> Thoughts and prayers.
Okay, it's written by the creator of Sex in the City.
And he knows, generally speaking, what young female audiences want.
And so Emily in Paris has every cliche you could imagine, why?
It's specifically designed for a certain demographic.
Fine, mainly a human being did that, but they're engineering it to appeal to you.
So now we're two inches away from artificial intelligence.
>> I know. >> So the fact that they're gonna do that
is inevitable, right?
And then, so if eventually, people will know, that's an AI movie,
that's a human movie, right?
And my guess is the AI movies are gonna suck a little bit.
Some of them will be like Emily in Paris.
You'll be like, it's kitschy.
I kinda like it.
It's formulaic, etc.
And some of them will have twists and turns,
cuz the algorithm doesn't just spit out necessarily boring stuff,
it knows that it needs twists and turns, and maybe some of it will be good, okay?
But generally speaking,
I still think you need human flair to make something brilliant.
>> No, by the way, we don't need robots to take, what is the point of AI, right?
>> To save costs.
To save money.
>> Okay, but that's exactly right, right?
So that's exactly what the workers, in this case, the writers, see coming.
They see that they are going to be replaced by AI technology so
these studios can maximize their profits and cut labor costs.
That is what they're trying to do.
>> 100%, that's definitely what they're trying to do.
>> And I love the fact that look, but this is exactly what I've been talking about,
not just in the context of this story, but
in any story where we talk about automation, right?
If we're going to sit here and think that Congress,
that the United States government is going to protect workers and
regulate the implementation of AI technology, we would be mistaken.
And luckily, in this particular context, you have organized labor.
You have unionized workers who actually have a seat at the table and have a say in
regard to, or could potentially have a say based on how the strike turns out,
on how it gets implemented, on what regulations are implemented.
I love to see that.
I think that is exactly where union power matters and counts.
I'm worried about the rest of the workers in this country who are not organized,
who do not have union representation, who absolutely will be replaced by AI
robots because that's what their employers want.
>> Yeah, for sure.
I'll end on two things.
One, Ana is a billion percent right.
The government is definitely not here to help you.
And iIn the old days, maybe they would have, but
now both parties are completely owned by the donors.
The executives are the donors, period, over.
And not just in this industry, in every industry.
You're not gonna get any help from corporatist Democrats or
corporatist Republicans, which is about 90% of Congress, okay?
So now, as to well, okay, well,
between all the different parts of the pie, why should the writers get more?
Well, look at this.
They go on strike, and almost all of the talk shows are canceled or
are on suspension, etc.
>> Daytime soap. >> Daytime soaps,
all these different things, why?
Cuz it turns out writers are kinda important.
The folks in front of the camera 90% of the time don't know
what to say unless they put it in the prompter, okay?
Who put it in the prompter?
The writers.
By the way, we don't have prompters here,okay,
[LAUGH] but 98% of media does, right?
So, look, I say it in the context of news, it's a little bit different, but
in news, I'm sorry that it's Terissa, but I call a lot of the cable
news anchors cable news actors, cuz they're just literally reading a script.
So the only guy who pulled it off last time was John Stewart.
So in the last strike, he did The Daily Show by himself, and it was still good.
I was like- >> Wow.
>> Damn, okay?
Everybody else was like, my 30 writers are gone.
How could I possibly write?
How could I possibly do a talk show without 30 writers, okay?
>> That's actually such a great point, and I hadn't thought about that, right?
The fact that the late night shows just can't do it without the writers.
>> Yeah, and by the way, even The View today was joking around.
They're like, okay, take it easy on us cuz we don't have our writers today.
You need writers for The View?
And the answer is apparently yes.
>> Yeah.
>> Because they can't come up with the ideas on their own apparently.
So understand that when you're watching almost anything in media,
there was a writer who thought of that.
And the person speaking the words nine out of ten times is not the person who came up
with the words.
The person who came up with the words is more important.
That's why I support the writers.