Marquardt 1

Patricia Marquardt

Professor Plummer

English 211

August 3, 2023

Writers Will Triumph: A Look into Why AI Falls Short

Writers captivate individuals’ fascination through books, television, and movies. They are

the masterminds behind the plot, and they are the alchemist of new worlds. They deserve credit

for providing their significant contributions. Sadly, many writers do not experience this. The

Writers Guild of America members are not receiving the respect they deserve, and they feel

additional distress with Artificial Intelligence becoming an issue. Many writers in different fields

could potentially see ChatGPT as a threat. However, ChatGPT does not have enough power to

overtake writers’ jobs because of its inaccuracies, lack of humanness, and the outcomes of

previous technological advancements.

While scrolling through social media or flipping through news channels, one is most

likely to wander across information surrounding the Writers’ Strike. The strike started by Writers

Guild of America (WGA) members centers around their frustrations with low pay (Gondelman).

The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers also withheld payment and privileges

from the Directors Guild of America, but later granted them their rights; the DGA and WGA are

still on the same team (Pulliam-Moore). Support is also arising from places outside the United

States. For example, “The Writers’ Guild of Great Britain (WGGB) has backed the strike action,

advising its members not to work on projects in the event of US industrial action” (“In brief: US

writers’ strike”). The decrease in payment is partially because the Alliance of Motion Picture
 Marquardt 2

and Television Producers (AMPTP) reduced the number of episodes per show (Gondelman). The

AMPTP is trying to kick writers out of their jobs. This statement is proven further by the fact that

AMPTP dismissed worries brought to their attention by the WGA about AI (“Hollywood Writers’

Strike”). The type of AI that writers are concerned about is ChatGPT.

ChatGPT emerged on the worldwide internet before the start of 2023 (Sedaghat 1). It is a

type of AI that can answer questions, communicate with people, and provide a variety of

information at the push of a button (Sedaghat 1). There are two versions of it: ChatGPT 3.5 and

ChatGPT 4.0 (Lingard). The former version is free. The language model, which uses patterns of

familiar words found together, helps it come up with the information it presents (Giray). The

ChatGPT user writes their question or command in the input and ChatGPT reveals the output in

the form of a response (Lingard). The many sources of information programmed into ChatGPT

to produce the outputs were last updated in 2021 (Lingard).

The years of information absent from ChatGPT’s storage of information are part of the

reason for its many false outputs. This can be very confusing and inaccurate when it is made to

write scripts for shows that occur in the present day. Viewers might not feel like the show is as

relatable as it should be and feel hesitant to watch it. This might cause the show to get fewer

views and in turn not provide enough payment to the television studios. In the long run, it would

expel more money from the AMPTP’s pockets than it would if AMPTP were to pay their writers

more in the first place.

Furthermore, ChatGPT’s inaccuracies can still be a problem even if the viewers are not

aware of them. If AMPTP uses AI to develop storylines and dialogues that present false

information, the viewers might spread the information to other people till it becomes disguised as

a fact. It would create a population of uninformed civilians. Even small incorrect facts can
 Marquardt 3

amount to more significant topics becoming misunderstood. Sooner or later people might realize

where the misinformation stemmed from and call out the television producers.

To specify the reason why viewers may easily fall for the misinformation presented is

because of the positive machine heuristic attributed to computer sources like AI. If a movie script

is created by AI, people would probably find out if they searched for information on the show.

Positive machine heuristics are preconceived notions about technical equipment (Sundar and

Liao). For instance, most people believe computers to be reliable and logical. Therefore, they

will most likely not question an AI-built show that has a character spew out information,

especially if the misinformation stays consistent.

Misinformation is not the only barrier to using AI in place of human writers. There is also

the word limit per input problem. The ChatGPT 3.5 version only allows, at most, 500 words at a

time (Lingard). Meanwhile, the ChatGPT 4.0 version allows people to write 25,000 words;

however, as Lorelei Lingard experienced, it gave up after a few hundred words. An episode is

usually 30 minutes to an hour long; depending on the show. It would deprive producers, or

whoever would oversee the production of AI scripts, of their time. Their other duties would need

to be pushed to the side only because AI seems quick and easy. A lack of attention to their other

obligations would result in a mediocre show that people may not want to watch.

Viewers may also stray away from shows that lack humanness. Humans are aware

beings, having emotions and consciousness behind every action made. Yet, AI is emotionless. It

has no consciousness. The output it creates depends on the huge amount of information that it

was programmed to know. Emotions and empathy cannot be taught; they can be mimicked

(Sundar and Liao). At the heart of television shows and movies, there is the importance of

expelling strong emotions from the viewers. Whether it be sadness or humor, a show succeeds if
 Marquardt 4

it bears some human resemblance. If producers profited on AI-written scripts, the television

shows would probably be bland. Not to mention, the multitude of characters on a show have

different personalities. Every person who has ever lived and people currently living on this earth

has a distinction to them. AI would not have the ability to create unique dialogue for each

character. A human writer, on the other hand, can go inside the mind of a character because they

can empathize and experience emotions. Writers understand that people of the same clique have

distinctions in voice and attitude.

Another part of humanness is the ability to be creative. AI can create outputs, but it only

uses previous information to do so. Creativity centers around originality which is “borne out of

authentic experience” (Sundar and Liao). AI does not experience life. It doesn’t have any

memory. When people correct ChatGPT on its incorrect output, a few hours later, it forgets the

information and past chats. ChatGPT can’t create anything it finds meaningful; therefore, some

viewers are most likely to find another television show that they know contains some meaning

and originality to it. According to Sedaghat’s research, “A recent study evaluated ChatGPT’s

ability to generate a literature review on the concept of the ‘digital twin’ in healthcare, asking it

to paraphrase selected literature from 2020 to 2022. Although the results were promising, the

iThenticate plagiarism detection tool identified many plagiarism matches” (2). Plagiarism is not

originality; in fact, it is the opposite. Despite the study circulating around medical tasks,

television script plagiarism is just as bad because viewers might stray away from watching the

repetitiveness. In addition, there is the possibility of television shows wanting to sue AI-written

shows for being alike.

It is not the first-time new technology has been an issue for creators. Worries encompass

the takeover of AI in the writing profession, but in the past, it was also an issue in the musical
 Marquardt 5

industry and art industry (Samuelson). The problems with Generative AI have sparked important

issues with creators that caused them to take their frustrations to court. The problem is with

copyright issues. “Subsequent copyright-disruptive technologies have included cable television,

photocopiers, videotape recording machines, and MP3 players, each of which (except

photocopiers) attracted copyright industry challenges (all of which failed in the courts, although

Congress sometimes later extended protections in the aftermath of failed lawsuits)” (Samuelson).

All the previously mentioned technological equipment is used freely by a majority of citizens.

This will probably be the case for AI. The outcome of a lawsuit surrounding getting rid of

generative AI would likely not happen. In that instance, writers will need to become familiar

with the ins and outs of ChatGPT.

Despite ChatGPT being available to everyone, writing jobs will likely not be disregarded

because of the skill it takes to put ChatGPT to good use. As mentioned earlier, ChatGPT is

flawed in many aspects. It is soulless and it has the ability to be a liar. However, it can add to a

writer’s ability if thought is integrated into the input. Not many people would be willing to spend

the time and effort to perfect the way they use ChatGPT. It is a quick solution to create

paragraphs of content out of information entered in the input, but the output can produce generic

results; nonetheless, with false information. Writers, on the other hand, are not looking to use it

to make it do all the work for them. They want to be the creators of their work, but they can use

ChatGPT to help improve their writing or establish an outline. They have the initial thought and

final say during each use.

Some solutions have been spoken about. For instance, Darren Trattner, a talent lawyer,

suggests, “If we cannot prevent AI, maybe the input always must be done by a WGA member”

(qtd. in Cullins and Kilkenny 1). It is a good idea because no other member of the AMPTP is as
 Marquardt 6

familiar with the assignment of researching accurate information for a script. Writers who create

scripts for movies and television must be well-versed in what is current in society or what was

considered normal in the year the show takes place. As mentioned before, ChatGPT sometimes

reveals inaccurate information, and it doesn’t have any information from the past few years in its

programmed system.

In any event, AI and ChatGPT will persist in their availability to everyone, but that does

not undermine the work of writers. Eventually, a time will come when AMPTP will need to hire

writers and forgo their opposition to raising writers’ pay. Time constraints and ignorance of

writing techniques and simple information are possible future motivators for AMPTP begging

writers to come back. They need all the help they can get to perfect their jobs and the jobs of the

other workers who are a part of their team. No job, especially not writers, can be brushed aside in

the entertainment industry. It would affect a multitude of people, including the viewers.
 Marquardt 7

Works Cited

Cullins, Ashley, and Katie Kilkenny. “Is ChatGPT a Scab? The Writers Guild Hopes Not.”

Hollywood Reporter, vol. 429, 2023, p. 36.

Giray, Louie. “Prompt Engineering with ChatGPT: A Guide for Academic Writers.” Annals of

Biomedical Engineering, 2023, pp. Annals of biomedical engineering, 2023.

Gondelman, Josh. “Pay Your Writers.” The Nation (New York, N.Y.), vol. 316, no. 11, 2023, p. 5.

“Hollywood Writers’ Strike May Lead to Cost-Cutting.” HRNews, 2023, pp. HRNews, 2023.

“In Brief: US Writers’ Strike; Richard Sharp; Jeff Stelling; All3Media International.” Broadcast,

2023, pp. Broadcast, 2023.

Lenharo, Mariana. “ChatGPT Gives an Extra Productivity Boost to Weaker Writers.” Nature

(London), 2023, pp. Nature (London), 2023.

Lingard, Lorelei. “Writing with ChatGPT: An Illustration of Its Capacity, Limitations &

Implications for Academic Writers.” Perspectives on Medical Education, vol. 12, no. 1,

2023, pp. 261–270.

Maddaus, Gene, and Brent Lang. “Bracing for a Possible Writers Strike.” Variety, vol. 359, no. 2,

2023, pp. 32–9.

 Marquardt 8

Pulliam-Moore, Charles. “The Directors Guild of America Has Ratified a New Labor Contract.”

The Verge, 26 June 2023, www.theverge.com/2023/6/26/23773926/dga-amptp-new-deal-

strike.

Samuelson, Pamela. “Generative AI Meets Copyright.” Science (American Association for the

Advancement of Science), vol. 381, no. 6654, 2023, pp. 158–161.

Sedaghat, Sam. “Early Applications of ChatGPT in Medical Practice, Education and Research.”

Clinical Medicine (London, England), vol. 23, no. 3, 2023, pp. 278–279.

Sundar, S. Shyam, and Mengqi Liao. “Calling BS on ChatGPT: Reflections on AI as a

Communication Source.” Journalism & Communication Monographs, vol. 25, no. 2,

2023, pp. 165–180.