Is it feasible to imagine a future where AI supplants the role of screenwriters? In pursuit of carving out more time for work considered as “value-added”, the temptation is to emphatically reject the idea. Yet, might such a rejection be misplaced?
Surprisingly, a recognised director confided to a British government panel earlier this year that, within a frame of three to five years, we could see entire TV series produced by AI. Moreover, screenwriting associations globally are sufficiently anxious about AI’s impending role that they have clarified a united stance on AI’s ethical application. The concept, though seemingly improbable, isn’t outside the realm of possibility. Indeed, it seems to be very much on people’s minds, amidst frenzied anticipation within the technology sector over innovative approaches to thought delegation.
Hence, the question stands: Is screenwriting still a profession best catered to by humans? The domain is already dominated by those with other revenue streams; could the entertainment industry, notorious for its lax approach to writer compensation, go a step further and relegate the craft to an uncompensated AI?
The proposition appears fantastical, but it is very much a topic of discussion. As more industries look to delegate intellectual efforts, screenwriters join a group of creatives unwillingly leading this disconcerting movement.
Personally, I confess that the fear of being replaced is often supplanted by the desire for relief from the mundane responsibilities of my job. I welcome the prospect of a robo-assistant. But, it amuses me to think that those who have contributed indelibly to our culture – musicians, actors, artists, writers et al – now face the threat of AI disruption.
James Hawes, the accomplished director of the Apple TV+ series ‘Slow Horses’ and the Anthony Hopkins film ‘One Life’, informed a Westminster parliamentary discussion that TV series scripts and their footage could potentially be wholly AI-derived as soon as 2027. Notably, he did not endorse this possibility.
His educated assumption of when we can anticipate an AI series indicates a timeline of three to five years. This estimation is based on his comprehension of technology, namely OpenAI’s Sora tool, along with insights from visual effects specialists and his exchanges with the legal divisions of US actor and writer organizations, Sag-Aftra and the WGA. Both entities prioritized AI during their extended contract discussions with Hollywood producers the previous year.
Subsequent news reports highlighted soap operas, which was reasonable to some extent, especially since some soap operas would benefit from an AI tool merely to keep tabs on the numerous serial killers present in their storyline. Mentioning the BBC’s daytime drama, Doctors, he elaborated that an AI tool might be requested to compose and produce a scene where a casualty doctor playfully interacts with a colleague while a patient is expiring on the bed. While the result might not match up to human craftsmanship, he emphasised that “this is the extent we have reached”. He expressed astonishment on behalf of all the creative individuals involved.
Soap operas, due to their high-volume nature, rely on unparalleled first-shot production efficiency, functioning as well-oiled contraptions, even in the absence of machine learning technology. However, after witnessing declining viewer rates over the years, TV executives no longer hold UK soaps in the same esteem. BBC’s Doctors, for example, was cancelled last October, with the last episodes set to be broadcasted in December. Meanwhile, Hollyoaks on Channel 4 has decreased its weekly episode count from five to three, starting in September. All attention is now on EastEnders, but the outlook is not positive.
As for local broadcasting, Fair City, the sole in-house drama production of RTÉ, has cut down its weekly transmissions from four to three due to the broadcaster’s series of content reductions in 2024. Despite the reduction, four episodes are still produced weekly, with the altered scheduling offering a two-month summer break for production, leading to cost savings for RTÉ.
Even if the importance of human authorship is honoured more in other places, it is inevitable that there will be a ripple effect.
Undeniably, there exist tough broadcasting environments where projections of AI soap operas are abound. But, the main inspiration for these assumptions is the rapid progression of technology. It would be rather naive to assert that AI as a tool for scriptwriting, story-lining or script editing will be limited only to soap opera production.
Even if the value of human authorship is maintained in other sectors, an inevitable ripple effect is expected. Soap operas, valued not just for their entertainment, but also for being a foundation for the broader audiovisual trade. The first AI-driven soap opera, developed by an innovative individual with an OpenAI licence, risks triggering a de-skilling process that cannot be overturned.
Therefore, it’s not surprising that both the International Affiliation of Writers Guilds, under the leadership of Chairwoman Jennifer Davidson from the Writers Guild of Ireland, and the Federation of European Screenwriters have jointly passed a resolution. This is in favour of developing an ethical guideline for applying AI in scriptwriting.
This involves a demand for mandatory transparency and accountability regarding the utilisation of AI-produced content, and a plea for permission and fair compensation when writers’ intellectual property is utilised for teaching larger language models or other AI forms. They also assert that AI shouldn’t replace writers.
The process of creating written content, as rudimentary as it may sound, is more time-consuming than reading it. This is the joy and cost associated with it. Yet, Big Tech is set to unleash the proverbial genie leaving a void — potential scenarios reminiscent of gloomy Christmas days in Albert Square.