Why Pro Writers are Terrified of AI

[@Thanatology101]

People aren't afraid of AI. People are afraid of what *big companies and businesses will do with AI.* Big companies don't need or want good stories. They don't need or want artists, programmers, writers -- they want to eliminate costs to maximize profits, and they will absolutely leverage their vast influences to achieve that even at the expense of literally eveything else. People are afraid of the system pushing them out in lieu of AI. It's important to remember that whatever AI can't currently do is going to change *very, very quickly.* This is the worst AI will ever be. Ten years from now, it's going to be exponentially better.

[@fastscreenplay]

You’re correctly describing the fear, but here again the fear is unfounded. It’s an abstract prediction of the future, and thus is necessarily incorrect and inaccurate because it’s limited by what we know, perceive, have access to, and understand today. For example, the idea that businesses would necessarily choose AI over a human who can achieve equally exceptional storytelling in the same accelerated time frame is an assumption you’re making. Why would that be so? Because it’s cheaper? But what if it’s not? What if, after a glut of AI-generated stories, the market wants human-created stories again? Business is nothing more than people bringing to market what it believes people will trade money for. It will shift based on an array of factors. Neither you nor I can predict what those factors will be five years from now. So to fear what business will do with AI is equally as unhelpful as fearing AI itself. I submit the better choice would be to understand the technology and stay aware of how its evolution is adjusting the landscape. One big way is that “big business” itself is increasingly vulnerable from the agile “little guy”. Wouldn’t it be a shame if the “little guy” lost his leverage because he avoided the tool that empowered him?

[@pheel4u]

Well said! Thank you.

[@fastscreenplay]

What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Are you still afraid? Or are you using it to accelerate your human creativity yet? Feel free to discuss, ask questions, and even disagree. Just be respectful and keep it clean. Let's navigate this amazing moment together.

[@corpsefoot758]

I feel like apart from your typically in-depth and thoughtful monologues on AI here, it might also be helpful to complement your discussion by showing a clip of you actually seeding and/or fleshing out a small, original narrative idea with the aid of said AI That would be a more productive means of demonstrating its capability/limitations, as well as thus helping viewers reach salient conclusions about it. Because I imagine the average person hearing the letters “AI” (whether they admit it or not) initially conjure up nightmares from Terminator or I, Robot :P

[@fastscreenplay]

@@corpsefoot758I hear you. There’s hours of that inside the Accelerator bundle, but yes, the plan is to do some of it on KZbin as well. I wanted to start by addressing some of the underlying ideas first, before digging into examples, as the examples are necessarily a bit circuitous due to how you actually get results out of AI (typing a couple of sentences and expecting magic is the same kind of silly fantasy as worrying about Schwarzenegger coming to wipe us out). It’s important to keep in mind that the audience I’m supposedly speaking to are writers - people whose job description requires imagination and an open mind. In theory, they should be the most willing to explore AI. We have to show why the aversion to it is antithetical to their own future first. (That’s my premise, anyway. I could be wrong. But I’ll have some examples and walkthroughs coming soon. I appreciate the suggestion!)

[@Grimreapo]

I will also have to agree with the folks who say that Companies are to be feared with AI and not the AI itself as there are so many choices for example companies using tech to fire workers with new tech that was not as good old stuff. As an example let's look at special effects, back the the the day they did INSANE stuff to make effects, from simple Camera lens tricks, mat paintings to scale models which had moving parts expressing the creative spirit of the FX team. Then came CGI, which at the time mixed in old-style effects which movies look even better, like Jurassic Park and Titanic still look great but whilst it would be VERY tempting to pin this on George Lucas companies thought "Why do we need to pay Barry who does the blood squibs vests? Why do need Dan the guy who makes planks for set? Why do need to pay Michelle the Makeup artists? Why do that when we have a single team using AI?" Granted times needed to change yet somehow CGI looks worse than it did a years ago, look at the new Antman and Cats which look like shit. If Companies cared about stuff other than profit then why do they look so bad? They would do the same with AI scripts.

[@fastscreenplay]

I hear your point but I think it’s making a couple of leaps. When we moved to CG rather than practicals for a lot of effects, practicals had had a hundred years to evolve. Of course they were better in many ways than the new technology. Over time we get better and more skilled and the quality goes up. If you’re suggesting that the quality is worse since it was originally, that’s a function of skill, time, money and artistic sensibilities. The better the tools get, the more ambitious we get, but quality takes time, so things get rushed (so that the budget doesn’t blow out), and that leads to lesser quality. I guarantee you can ask anyone who worked on any project you think is bad quality and (if they’re skilled) they’ll tell you about how didn’t have the budget or time. People love to blame companies but companies are just a group of people. They organize around profit because there’s no other unifying factor that would be able to keep a project together. If 100 people wanted to make a movie together, but it would take 6 months, people wouldn’t be able to pay their bills if they didn’t get paid. So it costs money to make the project. So a profit needs to be returned. To lament that companies will always try to make the best (so it can succeed in the market and get a return) for the lowest price is to misunderstand the realities of putting projects together. I have yet (after 40 years in the industry) to meet a person who willfully wants to screw people over. Those that do usually do so because they’re trying to achieve more for less. And AI is a tool that will shift what we can do and for how much. And I think it’ll open up more opportunities for smaller groups to achieve more for less, making it easy to create opportunity that sidesteps whatever big companies (large groups of people that require more money to sustain) might do. I think it’s so important for writers to see that the changes will happen structurally, not just incrementally.

[@VoIcanoman]

I dunno, I think there is some basis for fear. Not fear of the possibility that AI will be writing screenplays on its own eventually, but fear that it can do SOME of the job. That is, if you have a script and you want to change its structure (maybe to go from a sequential story to one in which the narrative takes place over a few different timelines, jumping back and forth), AI can give you a bunch of options for very little human work (although it would take a human to vet them, and see which ones make sense to a hypothetical audience). Or if you have a story in a certain format (say, a short story, or a novel) and you want to turn it into a film adaptation, AI may be now (or become soon) sophisticated enough to do the bulk of the work, thus rendering what would be hundreds of paid hours for a human down to maybe a couple dozen. The fear really is that, as with all technology, making certain tasks easier inevitably removes a lot of work that people would formerly have been paid to do. And I think that fear is well-founded. However, this genie is out of the bottle. There really is no going back, so just like the oil lamp manufacturers couldn't stop their decline when electric lights began to be mass-produced (and electricity spread around the world), AI is going to affect so many people, in so many careers around the world. Perhaps not immediately, and frequently in ways that we haven't thought of yet...and maybe we are overestimating the impact it can have (at least until other breakthroughs take place with this form of technology)...but that's reality and we can't ignore it.

[@fastscreenplay]

The fears you’re describing arise out of thinking of writing as a commodity. You even say “hundreds of paid hours for a human”, as if that’s the value writers bring to the market. And I agree with you that the commodity-value of writers will disappear (and be replaced by AI). But that just means that you’ll need to write your unique stories, and do so faster and more powerfully. It’s like robots on an assembly line. Yes it would remove the need for a rivet driver, but by definition that means that rivet driving is low-value work. The rivet driver may lament losing the hours and the pay, but they are now freed up to do more valuable work with greater meaning. Writers will need to lean in to the greater value work that has more meaning. And fortunately, that’s the work you’re actually meant to be doing.

[@VoIcanoman]

@@fastscreenplay But that is the value A LOT of writers bring to the market. There are writers who specialize in adaptation, injecting a certain amount of human ingenuity in determining how a work is adapted, what kinds of elements work well on screen, what things you might be able to do without, etc. An AI can do this job, but they can't do it like a human would, and the economics of the situation will likely result in worse movies being made (despite the subjectivity of artistic enjoyment, I do think we can still use the word "worse" and be accurate, given that humans bring a certain perspective to art that is itself going to make that art better for other humans) because the AI can do it faster and cheaper. Yes, there are tasks that an AI can do just as well as a human, maybe...but there are still writers that earn a living from doing those things now, and AI brings a lot of uncertainty to their economic futures as well. My point is, that at best, AI is a neutral thing for people who possess actual creativity (but that is conditional on the technology being used sparingly, which I doubt it will be), a negative thing for the industry functionaries who are able to use their English degrees to rework other peoples' ideas into usable scripts (which is a skill that they have invested a lot of time and money into, no doubt), and a positive thing only for those who are funding the Hollywood machine. And there are a lot more of the former two categories of people than the latter, so really...this tech will harm more people than it helps.

[@fastscreenplay]

@@VoIcanoman But there are so many assumptions in that. If humans are better at it, just because it’s cheaper doesn’t mean companies will use AI to save a few bucks. That would be foolish. If it gets to the point where it is better than the human, it would be foolish to pay a human to do it. This is basic economics; nothing changes with AI, except that humans need to get better (and faster) in order to stay relevant and competitive. You lament that there are very few companies and a great many writers, but that’s a bias based on the world up till now. The future is necessarily different to the past. And I predict writers with original voices will sidestep the companies that no longer value them - because they now have tools that make it easier than ever to do so. The reason I included the word “pro” in the title is that if one is a professional today, they are so in the old paradigm. So they will often be the last to see and embrace change that is upon us (including its opportunities), and I don’t want to see that happen to them. I know they love to lash out at me, but I’ve been burrowed into the new paradigm for many years now. And THAT’s why I’m not scared and I don’t think they should be either.

[@kiingo]

Hey Jeff, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on OpenAI's latest text-to-video release (SORA)?

[@fastscreenplay]

Funny you should mention it. I saw it this afternoon and am making a video about my thoughts right now. In short, my thoughts are that, once again, everyone will finally be able to see what I’ve been saying all along. This is what I’ve been talking about. In the coming years, we’ll be able to self-publish cinema-quality movies without anyone’s permission - putting writers at the pinnacle of the Hollywood food chain. Because when everyone can make movies (and distribute them), those whose films will get noticed are the ones with the best stories, best writing. The writers who are ready with the skills when this tech matures to the point of viability will be in an extraordinary position indeed.

[@kiingo]

@@fastscreenplay Totally agree and I'm very excited for your upcoming video! Keep up the amazing work -- long-time fan.

[@lukew8731]

I fear you miss the real threat of AI. You are absolutely correct that AI cannot compete with the creativity of an experienced human, however it can already compete with lower level writing, depriving people of the paid experience to achieve higher levels of experience. People are also always looking to maximize profit and minimize expense, and while quality human produced content will likely always surpass AI, if it costs an order of magnitude more to produce, it can still be outcompeted, or be buried under the mountain of AI garbage. And as an aside, your example of fearing Steven King or some other high level author is extremely poor, authors in his category are extremely limited in number and will naturally age out. AI is unlimited in number and will likely only get better and better as time progresses for the duration of human society as we know it.

[@fastscreenplay]

I very much appreciate your thoughtful reply and I accept that you’re expressing a more deeply-considered fear than what I’m talking about in the video. But understand also that you’re filtering your perception of it through our current paradigm and not the paradigm of the new era the technology introduces. As an example, the paid experiences you’re imagining are disappearing are actually multiplying, and will multiply faster as the technology evolves. We’ll be able to effectively self-publish movies, which will enable writers to iterate their development even more quickly than in a hierarchical apprenticeship type system that’s been the traditional Hollywood structure. And while it’s true that if an AI generated movie costs and order of magnitude less to make, that will simultaneously diminish its market value. We value what is rare, and the individual writer’s unique perspective is intrinsically rare; the only challenge is in shaping it in a way the market values. If we can do that (and we can), then projecting a total loss of its value simply because there are cheaper alternatives is speculative. Fine dining didn’t disappear when McDonald’s arrived. If anything, it made fine dining even more appealing. As to the Stephen King analogy, I disagree emphatically and it’s the core of why I think you’re missing the point on this. King is a great and singular writer because of his mastery of the craft over an extended time. AI (when used as a tool rather than as a solution) enables us to compress the time it takes to acquire that level of mastery. And that gives every writer on earth the potential to achieve such singular skill and storytelling ability. And since human beings make sense of our world through story (and thus will always crave human insights from humans on the experience alongside us), that points to an unprecedented level of opportunity and accessibility ahead.

[@lukew8731]

First, thank you for the detailed response, both to myself and others comments, it really helps to flesh out your argument. My biggest issue with the video is that it comes off as overly dismissive of AI concerns almost to the point of straw manning your opponents. Of course if you are addressing the primary concerns you commonly run into, that hardly applies, it’s just not concerns I hear much. As for your primary argument, I also watched your most recent video, and you do paint an interesting picture where motivated and talented individuals could not only challenge the larger corporations with the tools that may soon be fully developed, but also lead to an overall increase in artistic quality. I am skeptical that this will happen in the next 2 or 3 years as you speculate based on my personal observations, but you could be right on the timeline and you are definitely right about ideal Individual mindset. I still have significant, although more abstract, concerns about AI. Even in the ideal scenario, we are still eliminating large numbers of medium skilled jobs, and just like automation in other industries, it should open up a smaller number of high skilled, higher paying jobs/occupations. This will continue eating away at the shrinking middle class, a trend which is destabilizing the country and really isn’t being addressed. Obviously that’s way outside the scope of what you are addressing, but it is something that should be discussed more. As an aside, I am not and never will be a creative writer, however I would certainly be interested in watching content where you give examples of using AI to stream line content creation, as you touched on in your most recent video.

[@fastscreenplay]

@@lukew8731 I hear you, and I do often forget that I’m making videos for people who don’t know me (I tend to talk to the people who have spent, in some cases, hundreds of hours with my content over more than a decade now). I accept that it may come across as dismissive occasionally (probably a reaction to being dismissed myself all these years by people who should listen), and I’ll try to do better. The 2-3 year timeline is based on the rapid advancements in the AI-assisted production space. Look up AI video. It’s currently novelty-level and gimmickry/hokey with no real use case for independent creatives, but it’s moving fast. Within 2-3 years exponentially advancing technology should get us pretty close to being able to “self-publish” movies that are competitive in the marketplace. Not only would that open up new opportunities for creatives of all varieties, it will completely reshape the entertainment industry landscape. My biggest fear is that the people I love and relate to most - creatives within the film industry - will get unnecessarily wiped out because they refuse to adapt. (And as I see it, adapting in this case gets us closer to the core of who we really are.) As to the wider effects of AI, I’ve been ruminating on that for 20 years, too. (I did a TED Talk in 2015 that talks about it, even.) (As an aside, that doesn’t make me right, it just means my opinions have been raked over the coals of self-testing for a very long time.) And I think we have a natural tendency to project the negative outcome (as a survival mechanism), and entirely overlook the positive, and our natural tendency to solve the problems we create for ourselves. I don’t think we can imagine all the jobs being lost without simultaneously spending time imagining what might replace them, or the survival-instinct countermeasures we’ll develop in response to the dangers or societal impacts. There’s a natural lag time between the introduction of a new technology and the ability to see its implications. But once we see them we fix or mitigate them. Which leads to more innovation, more lag, more solutions, etc. There’s nothing in our history to suggest we have a species-level death wish, so I believe we should assume people have the best intentions and will always work toward progress and greater security. Again, I could be wrong, but I have yet to see anything that contradictions my conclusions. But I’m always open to opposing ideas, because correcting for errors in my judgment only serves me in the long run.

[@muchanadziko6378]

3:29 well, I'm here, because I wanted to hear a professional's perspective on the dangers of AI. Instead, I'm seeing a guy saying that people who think that AI is dangerous for artists are dumb. Long story short, click bait title, or just my misunderstanding of the title. This being said, so far you seem like a person who misunderstands the actual danger. People are not scared that AI will write better stories than they do. People are scared that companies will stop paying them for writing the stories, because AI can do it for free and faster, and the people who read/watch these stories won't know it and mostly don't give a damn. Also, stop shouting so much, you're talking to a microphone, it can hear you perfectly well if you whisper 3:50 And this is just a failure of your imagination. Not something wrong with people who can see that this kind of technology is progressing faster than the people who made it can predict.

[@fastscreenplay]

Gotta love it when people comment before watching the full video and the rail against things addressed in the very video. lol I have never once said artists who think AI is dangerous are dumb. Don’t put words in my mouth because you can’t rebut my argument. I have said that thinking AI is dangerous is looking at it through one singular filter - specifically the “offloading” filter. Yes, I understand that the fear is that companies will use AI to replace writers. Obviously. Thank you for the insight I posted to this channel A YEAR AGO. I’m saying this fear is unfounded, and will blind you to the opportunity of this moment. TL;dr: Companies may stop paying you for commodity-based work. Fortunately you can make a whole lot more by eliminating the need for those companies, using the same technology you’re afraid of. Ignore or distort the message (or complain about me getting fired up about it) if it makes you feel better. I’ll just be here helping writers succeed in this new era, when you’re ready to talk.

[@BeerTent]

I dream of having a passionate screenwriter as a college. I'm using AI currently to try telling a brand new story and instead of being scared, I'm being thankful. =]

[@muchanadziko6378]

why not just write it yourself?

[@fastscreenplay]

@@muchanadziko6378 Way to miss the point of what he said.

[@oraclemedia9266]

Totally true! AI cannot substitute a human crativity.

[@BeerTent]

At least at this early stage. =]

[@fastscreenplay]

@@BeerTent Well, as it’s not human, it won’t be able to later, either. It will be able to serve up an acceptable facsimile or suitably insightful or creative or helpful alternative, perhaps (maybe even simulated as human), but it creates from a different source than human beings do, so it will never be able to offer an authentic one-to-one substitute for human creativity. (Only interjecting because that’s actually the larger point of the video - not trying ti take the fun out of your comment.) :)

[@davezad]

It occurs to me the answer to this lies with the audience. People are going to prefer scripts written by real humans the same way they want organic foods. So, the studios must be banned from using fake name credits for AI writers and ideally should have to put an "AI Generated" label prominently along with the film's logo on every cover art. Full disclosure should be mandatory. If despite this people are still interested in paying to see AI works, then at that point the argument becomes moot for the most part.

[@fastscreenplay]

I have long maintained that both will coexist. We’ll love stories created by AI, and we’ll love stories created by humans. I have no problem with demanding transparency, and having studios label AI-generated works. But that’s also just one use of the technology, ya know. We don’t need to use the tool to generate stories; we can use it to accelerate our human creativity, too. From what I’ve seen, writers are refusing to explore it and how it can be used because they can only imagine it as a technology that will write INSTEAD of them. I find it perplexing that writers, especially, can’t imagine two things existing at the same time.

[@davezad]

Likely their skepticism is linked to the studios themselves. Some clear boundaries will have to be set with employers with respect to this technology. Even if workers aren't outright replaced by it, the constant threat of that happening will be used to lower wages. Another tactic they'll try is to treat free AI labor as competition with live labor rates. Making real workers bid against bots for jobs. That employer could then claim they favor people over AI, as proven by an "all human staff." As many ways I can think of to screw workers over, they will find more. Now, in a scenario where creators control both the means of production and distribution, they would see only the benefits of AI. That should be the expectation. I personally wouldn't care if AI were a writer's tool, but on the other hand would feel guilty consuming material that was solely AI made. Especially considering the models that make it all work were trained by scanning millions of copyrighted source images, text or other media. Countless artists' work has already been exploited regardless of whether or not individuals use these AI tools ethically. I believe these eventualities must be addressed legally before bad precedents are ever set. Labor has to be the understood beneficiary or profit will take it all. @@fastscreenplay

[@fastscreenplay]

@@davezad Well, I think the paradigm shift is right there in your comment. I think the future sees fewer big companies and more creator/owners. The business model already exists and it makes sense for all involved. And it can scale, such that the natural market dynamics will smooth out the gaps everyone’s currently so afraid of. There is a bias in your comment, though, which I do think is coloring your thinking on this. When you say they’ll find more ways to screw over workers, it does imply a bias in thinking that suggests employers deliberately screw over workers. I do think that presupposes malicious intent that’s simply not there. I’ve worked with people at all levels of the industry and I can count on one hand the number of people I would consider genuinely malicious. I think people are simply trying to make their flawed or struggling business models work. It’s a similar bias in the thinking that AI has exploited artists in its training when the training has simply been done to improve the quality of the tool. In fact, the leading AI developers are predicting that they won’t even need to train models on that work anymore as the models have gotten that good. Which means we just need to see them implement limitations on output, so that it can identify when output infringes copyright or is too close in substance to existing works or styles. This is emerging technology and early versions always have problems that get ironed out as they mature. To make predictions entirely based on assumed intent that is most likely not what the actual intentions were is, I think, a mistake.

[@davezad]

No, I frankly am not moved to share a positive outlook. I'd expect to see this paradigm shift for myself in order to fully accept the possibility. Though I don't begrudge you your optimism because certainly it's preferable. @@fastscreenplay

[@fastscreenplay]

@@davezad I’m not suggesting or expecting you to meet me on the optimistic side of the conversation. I’ve been in this space, thinking about these things, gaming out the future, for about 30 years or so. (My screenwriting system was originally built to be the engine that would power an AI writing partner, long before the tech was functional.) My optimism is the result of enormous time spent thinking through all this stuff, so I appreciate that others haven’t spent the same time with it so will naturally tend toward the pessimistic or even cynical. It’s entirely natural; our amygdalae will always point us to threats and dangers first as it’s a survival mechanism. I’m merely making the case I’ve arrived at and trying to refine my understanding of the current thinking of the counter-arguments, to see if my ideas need to adjust. I think healthy and robust opposition is good as it forces us (if we’re open and honest) to challenge our assumptions and biases. But so far, I have yet to hear a compelling argument that would give me pause on my optimism, so I remain extremely excited for the future - for all of us.

[@Cpmjokeofvlogs]

I am Indian. You are my favourite ❤

[@surgeeo1406]

This realization came to me about a year and a half ago (I know it was Summer,) Only us, humans, can judge and evaluate the value of AI output, and we'll always judge it against human output. I said this to my interlocuters right there, but they were so caught up in their fears that it was as if I was speaking another language...

[@fastscreenplay]

It’s a very smart insight. It only relates to the value we humans perceive it to have (AI as it evolves may find value in something we don’t value from our perspective), but as it relates to storytelling, the fact that stories are for human consumption to entertain and understand our world, you’re certainly right. It’s only as valuable as we think it is.

[@LayneBenofsky]

Did an AI write this?

[@fastscreenplay]

@@LayneBenofsky Why would imagine it did?

[@MichaelUrocyon]

Employers see it as a solution...

[@fastscreenplay]

Keep an eye on the employers that do. They’re the ones who will fall hardest.

[@alexandraacreator-art]

lol nope

[@fastscreenplay]

“Nope”? That’s an odd response. What exactly do you disagree with?

[@alexandraacreator-art]

@@fastscreenplay I meant no disrespect. But ai is not what you think.

[@fastscreenplay]

@@alexandraacreator-art I’m pretty sure my thousand-plus hours spent deep-driving into it have given me a good handle on AI. Why do you imagine it’s “not what I think”?

[@DebiBrady]

"Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death."

[@PaulGaither]

You are so confidently out of touch in this video and your replies. Coke has already used AI to write a successful ad. Hasbro owns Wizards of the Coast (WotC), which owns and publishes Dungeons and Dragons, a story telling game. WotC has already had multiple situations in 2023 of getting caught using AI for art and attempting to replace the Dungeon Master - who is the primary story teller. You replied to one person saying, "here again the fear is unfounded. It’s an abstract prediction of the future" Wrong. It is already happening. Sports Illustrated was also caught inventing fake writers with fake AI generated faces who "wrote" articles and ad spots. You are demonstrably wrong. I can keep giving you examples, but that should be enough large cases to show it isn't a fear - it has been happening and, as the technology improves and becomes more difficult to detect, it will continue to grow. There is literally a channel called SciFi Stories with about double your subscribers that is AI voice with AI art reading stories, yes, written by humans, but how long before the story beats are better understood and authorial voices are better mimicked?

[@fastscreenplay]

Wow, what an epic example of missing the point entirely. You’re clearly new to my channel and my message, so my emphasis here is for clarity: I have said - repeatedly (and ad nauseum, I feel, though clearly not) - that AI and human writers can and will COEXIST. Whether Coke uses AI to write an ad… whether Hasbro aims to replace the human writer… whether ANYONE chooses the technology over the humanity - either transparently or illicitly… THAT WILL NEVER REPLACE the individual human writer’s unique experience, imagination, and storytelling ability. This video, this channel, and what I have done for 25 years now is for WRITERS. I am speaking to individual writers who are currently afraid they are going to be replaced by this technology. In this case I’m singling out professionals, and attempting to show them that - EVEN IF COMPANIES DO WHAT YOU’RE DESCRIBING - that cannot and will not replace them and their ability to create stories and have success as a creative writers in this new era. To suggest that I’m “out of touch” as you so confidently describe the situation from the perspective of the obsolete paradigm I’m quite literally talking about is the height of irony. I welcome you to take a minute, watch the whole video (and maybe others on my channel for additional context) and hear what I’m actually saying. Writers can spend their time worrying about how people and companies will offload to the AI (which, yes, of course they will), or they can use the technology to create the one-of-a-kind career and stories only they can tell. Spending their time worrying and focused on the inevitable coexisting alternative is entirely a waste of time and thoroughly unproductive, and will cause the greatest opportunity they’ve ever seen slip through their fingers.

[@PaulGaither]

@@fastscreenplay - Oh, I watched your entire video and read many of the comments before posting. Even this reply you left me is filled with the same problems. You try to have your cake and eat it too. Let me set aside some things early so we can move forward: 1. "[AI] WILL NEVER REPLACE the individual human writer’s unique experience, imagination, and storytelling ability." At no point in my reply or the reply of others was this claim disputed or even brought up, but you continue to try to argue it as though repeating what we can all agree on some how means you have won the conversation. this is a classic rhetorical device, whose name I can't remember right now, but the point is that you try to make your opponent [me] look bad by emphatically stating something we all agree on, and then by me saying I agree, it looks like a concession to your greater point, which it isn't. that is bad faith and makes it difficult to take you seriously in this conversation. 2. User Thanatology101 wrote a reply one day ago saying, "People are afraid of what big companies and businesses will do with AI." and you replied "You’re correctly describing the fear, but here again the fear is unfounded. It’s an abstract prediction of the future[...]" This is a recurring theme for you. You call it unfounded and an abstract prediction. I give real life examples where it is happening and you want to deny, deflect and move the goal post. Again, bad faith arguments. You say "I am speaking to individual writers who are currently afraid they are going to be replaced by this technology." - they are, but you are in denial of the truth when you say "EVEN IF COMPANIES DO WHAT YOU’RE DESCRIBING [...]" - They are happening. This isn't an opinion. It is happening and I showed you examples you can verify on your own if you really cared about the truth and not just being a loud mouth who found the caps lock key. Stop pretending it isn't happening with conditional sentences saying, " It’s an abstract prediction of the future, and thus is necessarily incorrect and inaccurate because it’s limited by what we know" - Again denial of reality. I can find a breadth of quotes both in the video and these comments which repeat this false position. however, I find it funny that the end of your reply to me you wrote, "Writers can spend their time worrying about how people and companies will offload to the AI (which, yes, of course they will)" You finally acknowledge that "of course they will", which is what I replied about and what other have written as replies to you about. 3. Once we push past all of that, we get to your statement at 4:27 in your video that "What you are worried about is that this machine will be able to tell stories better than the stories you can tell." That is a bold claim based on *nothing.* You are trying to move the goal post and reset the framework of the conversation to something you can attack, which is another classic rhetorical devise and I am calling you out on it. That is why we are spending so much time on those original first points and *not* what you are trying to shift it to. 4. Rather, your claims that "[AI] cannot and will not replace them and their ability to create stories and have success as a creative writers in this new era." is a loaded sentence. It won't replace their ability to create stories, obviously. How do you want to define success as writers? the era of the Magazine is long dead, yet that is where some of the very best writers got their starts all the way into the 1940s-1990s. Be it Kurt Vonnegut and Ray Bradbury writing thier short stories for magazine publication, so sports writers like Mel Kiper jr in the NFL writing NCAA Football scouting reports and mock drafts that got him work at ESPN, to the prestige of working for a big time publication like Sports illustrated. SI is looking to close its doors, especially on the heels of getting caught creating fake people with AI to write fake reviews for advertisers and articles with AI prompts. the channel FlemLo Raps recently published a video "How The World's Greatest Sports Magazine Was Reduced to Nothing" 7 days ago since my comment is being written which begins with a story about Jessica Smetana and other establish sports writers and their experience with SI. Has she lost her ability to write sports stories? No. Does she have that "dream job" of working for what was once the most prestigious Sports news source in the world? It was once larger than ESPN at one point? No. And more over, there is not really anywhere else to go for that kind of "success" these writers once had. There isn't another player in the game taking the place of SI, and whatever individual success on person or the other can find making a podcast or youTube Channel or whatever is a shadow of what it was once like. But keep on pretending it isn't happening and won't happen. It is painfully clear that you won't let facts get in the way of your opinion and poor argumentation and research skills as you are getting clowned on in the comments on your own channel. in the end, whatever helps you sleep at night, keep doing that.

[@fastscreenplay]

@@PaulGaither You’ve used a whole lot of words to say precisely the same thing you said originally, which I explained in my reply was missing the point entirely. You claim that I’m “trying to make you look bad” when it’s you who came out swinging with the phrase “you are so confidently out of touch” - a phrase very clearly designed to make ME look bad. So, setting aside your personal animosity toward the messenger…. I will try to say it again in fewer words: AI and human writers will coexist. Companies will try to replace writers with AI (because they only survive if they’re profitable, and so they’ll always attempt to cut costs). This in no way replaces the individual human writer’s unique experience, and thus, their ability to tell profound and engaging human stories. And if they use the technology to assist them, they will succeed beyond what they have lost. Success, as I am measuring it, is not wrapped up in the paradigm of yesteryear, but in the paradigm of tomorrow. It is you who is attempting to have your cake and eat it, too. You want the companies to give the writer their “dream job” even as the paradigm shifts entirely and makes that dream job an obsolete relic from a bygone era. You can’t be the head writer at a magazine that goes out of business, no matter how passionately you want it. To be perfectly clear: The industry will change, profoundly. Writers are worried that they won’t have the jobs they dreamed about. I’m saying if they focus on the new jobs they’ll be able to create, they have nothing to worry about, for it is their unique individual creative voice that is the true power underlying the work they do. You can give me a hundred more examples of your straw man argument that ignores and distorts the content and context of my message if you like. But whatever you might think you’re accomplishing, you’re only demonstrating my point.

[@PaulGaither]

@@fastscreenplay - I will keep this a lot shorter with each quote and reply in a sentence or two, though clearly this is a waste of time. You keep repeating what we agree on instead of addressing what we don't. 1."AI and human writers will coexist." yup. AI won't prompt itself, but AGI will, if it ever happens. 2. "Companies will try to replace writers with AI (because they only survive if they’re profitable, and so they’ll always attempt to cut costs)." At least you acknowledge it, because that is what this has been about. 3. "This in no way replaces the individual human writer’s unique experience, and thus, their ability to tell profound and engaging human stories." Wrong. Throw out the word "Replace". It can and will be able to be synthesized. You are in denial are are being short sighted here. Won't waste time with examples unless asked for it. keeping this short. 4. "Success, as I am measuring it, is not wrapped up in the paradigm of yesteryear, but in the paradigm of tomorrow." At least you are finally trying to define it, which you did not in your video or comments. Yet you have still failed to do so. "the paradigm of tomorrow" is empty nonsense. Be concrete. Give specifics. Don't use nebulous corporate speak like you are another empty suit. 5. "even as the paradigm shifts entirely and makes that dream job an obsolete relic from a bygone era." no. I was working with a singular definition of success because you have still failed to provide a concrete example, so I filled in where you failed. You try to pin it on me with "You want the companies to give the writer their “dream job” bu I never said they should I showed why such jobs are going away, and AI is one of those reasons. You might be a good writer, but you are not a good reader... or maybe you just argue in bad faith. 6. "Writers are worried that they won’t have the jobs they dreamed about." - Agreed. And what jobs did they dream about? As I referenced in FlemLo Raps video about Sports illustrated, they dreamed about the jobs of old. We went over this. Have you lost the plot already in your own reply? You are really bad at this. 7. "I’m saying if they focus on the new jobs they’ll be able to create" Moving the goal post once more. Earlier in the comments section, you said, "[...] again the fear is unfounded. It’s an abstract prediction of the future" So, which is it then? You have shifted your thesis from the fears of losing their jobs being unfounded into how they need to create new jobs. Why create new jobs buddy? Because the old ones are going away. Because the fears are correct. They have to adapt or die. As you said, they have to adapt to "the paradigm of tomorrow." I am reminded of why not to teach a pigeon to play chess. In the end it will knock all of the peaces over, crap on the boar and strut around as though it had won. Reply if you like, but I have wasted enough of my time.

[@fastscreenplay]

@@PaulGaither Okay. I’ve made my replies as short and concise as possible. To your numbered points: 1. AGI will arrive. And when it does, that will not replace your life, your experiences, and YOUR ability to tell stories. 2. The fact that you think I didn’t “acknowledge it” from the outset is the very source of your total misread of my video and all the comments you read. That has been the core of my thesis for a YEAR now, which is why I invited you to review other videos on this channel to establish the context you are skipping over due to your biases. 3. Okay, I’ll rephrase using your word. “AI’s ability to SYNTHESIZE in no way replaces the individual human writer’s unique experience, and thus, their ability to tell profound and engaging human stories.” Is my message and context starting to make sense yet? 4. Yeah, obviously. Because that’s not what this video is about. You can watch other videos on my channel for part of it, but I have a full-time business to run so giving you all the details you’re looking for will take some time. I can’t do it in a single video.. You can infer a lot from what I’ve already put on this channel but I’ll also be spelling it out in the weeks and months ahead. Go back a few videos and you’ll see that I spent all last year worried about stepping out (for this exact reason), and have only just begun to do so. Patience rather than vitriol will be far more productive. 5. You are distorting both the content and meaning of what I said, and you know it. 6. Annnd, more personal attacks. Who’s trying to make whom “look bad” again? To restate it (yet again), AI is a new, disruptive technology that changes the landscape for creative writers. The jobs and companies and examples you keep holding up as proof that writers should remain terrified of the technology (which, lest we forget, is what this video is about) will change. Yes. And that in no way strips the writer of their value or their skill set, which can be transferred to the new jobs, opportunities and examples the very same technology creates. 7. You love the “moving the goal posts” argument, without ever stopping to recognize that I haven’t “moved” anything - you’re only finally starting to see the goal posts I’ve been describing. The quote you seem so hung up on - “the fear is unfounded; it’s an abstract prediction of the future” - is one you are stripping of its original context to serve your straw man argument. To be clear (yet again): The fear of what big companies and people will do with AI - ie, replace writers - is an unfounded fear for the INDIVIDUAL writer focused on their own worth and future. It (the fear) is “an abstract prediction of the future” because to imagine that the INDIVIDUAL writer will be unable to carve out a meaningful career, livelihood, and sense of artistic purpose - ie, what a creative writer cares about (or at least where the fear I’m addressing in this video originates, in my estimation) - presupposes that the future (which we cannot predict) will be as they imagine. But what they imagine companies and others will do with the technology should not (in my view) be a cause for fear because of the new opportunities the very same technology offers them. I can’t tell if you’re disingenuously plucking a quote fragment to prop up your straw man argument or if this is due to your fundamental rejection of (or perhaps misunderstanding of) my wider message and context, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, the point is this: You are correct that these things are happening and will continue to happen - as I’ve said all along for more than a YEAR now. But the FEAR that is born of everything you’re talking about is unfounded. The future will not look like the past, so it doesn’t matter that those things will happen, are happening, or might even become systemic. What matters is that writers understand and prepare for the NEW paradigm that is emerging. And in that paradigm, the fact that every writer is intrinsically unique is what makes writers more valuable that they recognize. If you believe this to be a waste of your time, I will happily let this be the end of this discussion. But if you can just let go of your biases and your anger at me for one moment and hear what I’m actually saying (rather than what you want to pretend I’m saying), there is a profound epiphany waiting for you. Alas, I don’t expect you to, nor do I expect the majority to hear my message. It’s fine with me. I promise. But it’s deeply ironic that you end with the idea that it’s pointless to teach a pigeon to play chess - and imagine that it supports YOUR position. For the record, I don’t think you’re a pigeon. :)

[@thesweetidiot6741]

Bleh

[@fastscreenplay]

“Bleh”? Meaning what? You… don’t like the video? Don’t like the message? Don’t like yourself for agreeing with me? ;) It’s hard to open a helpful dialogue when people grunt one-word sounds and call it a “comment”. When you’re ready to discuss, feel free to share your thoughts about the content of the video. I’m here to help, even if we disagree.

[@thesweetidiot6741]

It's my catchphrase. Nothing wrong with the video.@@fastscreenplay