More detail on the deal of the WGA of the Writers Strike.
The link below is a summary of the 2023 WGA MBA, although I haven't seen the whole document, I will assume the content is accurate to the deal they made. Concerning the thread is the topic of AI covered in the 5th section of the 16-part summary.
This is honestly a lot more lukewarm of a response than I expected against AI.
First, it asserts that AI cannot be considered source material and, therefore can't be credited. So you can't credit ChatGPT as a writer, but the writer itself. This sounds like AI cannot be used to adapt literary material into a script, but the entire thing implies all this says is you can't use AI to rewrite an existing book and credit the AI as a writer. So I think this just means that AI can't be credited, not that it can't be used period.
Second, writers can use AI when performing writing services, but the studio can't mandate it. Which I thought was never an issue as writers never claimed they wanted to use AI tools nor did I get the impression that any studio would mandate it. This seems like it addresses none of the issues people have with AI. Potentially what this will do is hold off studios from making proprietary AI for their studio. This is the only reason that I might think will hurt the AI industry, but nothing here suggests that studios won't release a commercial product with AI.
Third, it says that the studio must tell if the material given to the writer is AI-generated. I think this is only significant as the studio can't give out inauthentic research materials to their writers, but frankly, I don't really see how this will discourage the use of AI in the industry.
The only thing that can potentially hurt AI in the film industry might be the fourth statement, which says that WGA has the right to assert that training AI on writer's material is prohibited. But I'm not so sure how strong this is, nor am I sure if this is a hard ban on AI training because there is also this article below that implies that this right is still left impeded. It gives me the impression that this is a finger-wagging to the studio, and there is a lot of wiggle room to allow AI training.
So overall, this is not an outright ban on AI that many were optimistically seeing, and it concedes the use of AI in several areas.
Another point I want to address is that AI is only mentioned in one section of the whole summary. This doesn't seem to reflect how much AI was a talking point in the discourse of the writer's strike. This makes me think that either; AI wasn't nearly the biggest issue for the workers as we imagined, or that the studio refused to budge on their right to AI and this is the best compromise they could make.
Unless someone else can clarify the summary for me, I don't think this is the win or loss for either pro-AI or anti-AI they expected. I can't see AI industry getting screwed over royally because of this deal.