Thread by @stevendeknight

Buckle up! Here comes a long one! Don’t know who wrote, but it was passed along to me. This is the clearest rundown on why the DGA's deal regarding AI isn't even close to truly protecting us, particularly anyone who isn't at the very top of the food chain.

PART 1: If you haven't voted yet, I urge you to read this. No amount of gains are going to matter if you don't have a job.

According to the summary of the agreement memo that the DGA released to members (viewable here: dga.org/.../2023_DGA_B…... ), "Duties performed by DGA members must be assigned to a person and Generative Artificial Intelligence does not constitute a person." Problem solved, right?

Note, however, the very -specific- term "Generative Artificial Intelligence" -- ask yourself why the SPECIFICITY about "Generative" is stipulated. Perhaps it's because the AMPTP is hoping the DGA won't realize there are several other kinds of "AI" tools...

...that can be used to perform the kind of work now done by ADs and UPMs which are NOT "Generative." Supervised Learning AI, Transfer Learning AI, Rules-based Systems, Ensemble Learning AI, and Feature Engineering AI (aka Hybrid AI)...

...can and have been used to replace rote tasks (and human jobs) in many workplaces and could easily be implemented in our industry performing such current DGA-only tasks as: • script analysis & breakdowns • script revision distributions...

• expense tracking • shooting scheduling • location organizing • generating equipment lists & coordinating rentals • logistics & delivery scheduling • payroll management • inventory management • transportation coordination • accommodation coordination...

...• catering coordination • permit requisition & clearances • labor paperwork. This is ALL easily handled (and has been successfully and profitably implemented by large companies like UPS) by completely NON-Generative Artificial Intelligence.

So ask yourself why the AMPTP's deal memo repeatedly places special emphasis on the word GENERATIVE (it's specifically used EVERY time they mention AI) when so very many other DGA duties & tasks can be replaced tomorrow with non-generative AI tools.

"But this is nitpicking," I hear people saying as they read this. Is it? SAG's contract for decades covered "filming" of features and television. And then some clever lawyer put forward the argument that "filming" wasn't a generic verb...

...but actually the act of committing moving images to celluloid film. Suddenly AFTRA began undercutting SAG wages in TV by saying they weren't intruding on SAG's film jurisdiction because they were only organizing TV "shot on video" not "filmed on film."

SAG went to arbitration and lost based on this cynical reading of a single verb. SAG went from covering 95% of TV pilots in 2007 to 10% by 2009, grew weak in the face of collapsing salaries & dues industrywide...

...and merged with AFTRA in a long, bitter, and arduous process that still causes troubles today. Filmed on Film. Shot on Video. Words matter, especially to lawyers. Generative AI is NOT the same thing as Non-Generative AI.

I brought this up today with a member of the DGA's Negotiating Committee. They reassured me that no one needs worry because the draft language of the DGA contract includes the phrase "artificial intelligence that learns patterns from data...

...and produces content based on those patterns" so the DGA's members are safe! Right? Well… no. Not if the AMPTP has lawyers and no conscience, they're not. What will happen is the first DGA Unit Production Manager replaced with a non-Generative AI application...

...will bring an arbitration and the AMPTP's lawyers will step forward and drive an elephant through the wiggle-word "CONTENT" in that sentence supposedly protecting the DGA's membership.

In 2019, Universal formed "Universal Content Studios." Many writers snarl when they hear that name. "What we create isn't 'content,' we write films and television programs," goes the complaint, "'Content' is what non-Hollywood creators generate for YouTube."

But Universal Content Studios and Universal Content Productions both claim that they DO make Content. Movies are Content. TV shows are Content. Videogames are Content.

Content, as it is now generally understood by everyone in this industry (the AMPTP's lawyers will argue) is the end result of hundreds of workers' labor being combined into a single salable entertainment format.

But is a shipping schedule "content"? Is an expense report "content"? Is hotel and catering coordination "content"? No, this AMPTP lawyer will sigh, those are merely "work products" which contribute toward the eventual creation of the final licensable entertainment.

You know... the Content. Like in the name "Universal Content Productions." After all, Universal Content Studios doesn't generally sell raw scripts or hotel receipts or transportation schedules...

...so how could such things be "content" in the context of the DGA's contract which bars "artificial intelligence that learns patterns from data and produces content based on those patterns"?

Never mind the fact that you can design a non-generative AI program which does NOT "learn patterns from data" but instead invents patterns from scratch via trial and error (Rules Based Artificial Intelligence) or user input mixed with RBAI (Hybrid Learning AI)...

...neither one of which would qualify as "learn patterns from data" in a court of law. Legal definitions are black holes. You can spiral into them and be crushed before you even understand what's happening.

And all it will take is ONE of the AMPTP's favorite arbitrators to despoil that contract for every DGA member. "Duties performed by DGA members must be assigned to a person and Generative Artificial Intelligence does not constitute a person." END PART 1