The end of cinema and television as we know it will occur due to artificial intelligence, according to filmmaker Justine Bateman. Justine Bateman, a former actress best known for her Emmy-nominated performance on “Family Ties,” has recently made waves by predicting Hollywood’s end due to impending AI. Justine Bateman worries that technology will kill the sector’s creative exploration and artistic expression and result in job losses.
As unionized writers and performers continue their strike against studios and streamers, her message reaches a wider audience. A concern that unrestricted use of AI would render them irrelevant to the business’s future is one of the driving forces behind this protest. On Friday, negotiations between studios and writers are expected to continue.
Despite Justine Bateman belief that it’s too late to preserve Hollywood, Washington shouldn’t give up. For length and clarity, the following interview has been condensed. Listen to today’s National Diplomat Tech Diplomacy edition to hear more from Justine Bateman.
Robert Overly:
Throughout the talks with studios and streamers, you provided SAG-AFTRA with advice on AI-related matters. AI seems to be a very powerful force. Is that what we’re going for?
Justine Bateman:
You and I both agree. I don’t believe I can stop it. Nothing I’m stating here can prevent what I view as the eventual extinction of our business due to the introduction of generative AI. Therefore, I concur with you.
I live in Washington and learned that you testified in 2008 at a Senate committee on net neutrality. I’m unsure how closely you follow the discussions over AI regulation in Washington, D.C. Still, I’d like to know if there is anything specific you would want to see politicians do.
One thing that would be fantastic is if you had to state that AI was engaged in this at all costs. You must adhere to specific guidelines to receive an organic seal on fresh products. I created CREDO23, a stamp that will be offered to filmmakers who wish to inform spectators that they produced a “normal film.” They avoided employing generative AI.
They employed a union workforce and used VFX and CGI sparingly. It’s a fairly straightforward thing. I wish we didn’t have to focus on it, but at least something like that would instill confidence in the audience and prevent them from thinking, “Oh, wait a second, did I just witness a false person? Or did I only observe a staged performance in which the actor did not say those things?
Right, transparency? Nobody wants to feel cheated.
It’s it, as there will be a lot of it.
I am aware that you returned to school to pursue computer science. What do you know or think you know about AI and these technological advancements that are reshaping the entertainment business that perhaps your colleagues either don’t know or are just now catching up to as a result of the strikes?
Obtaining a degree in computer science can provide the advantage of understanding the thought process of programmers. And a little bit of set it and forget it is one-way programmers approach problems. Some various platforms and apps operate in this manner. TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter—although I’m unsure what Twitter is becoming into. They don’t have to pile a lot of goods on the platform. They don’t have to stock the shelves; others do. You and I keep posting, uploading pictures and movies, and filling the shelves.
Now picture yourself as Amazon, the company behind Netflix, Apple TV+, and other online video services. Despite being a tech firm, you cannot leave things alone. And at least some of it frustrates them. They’d want to be like TikTok, Twitter, or another platform where they developed and added the content. But instead, they need to strike arrangements to get these movies and TV shows — I detest the phrase “content” — instead.
Additionally, when those license agreements started to seem awkward or expensive, they started producing their content. As a result, they now have to deal with dealing with directors, writers, producers, actors, locations, crew, and, you know, pension and health payments. That’s a distinct experience from simply being a platform-based IT firm.
So in that regard, I fail to see why they wouldn’t want all-AI movies tailored to a viewer’s viewing preferences and even charge extra for folks who want to have themselves scanned or upload a photo of themselves to be included in the movie. Because you can offer people all AI movies tailored to their viewing preferences or history in this way, it’s a set-it-and-forget-it scenario.
The thought that you may create completely original movies or television programs depending on your interests or take the “make your own story” approach to entertainment is exciting. Every one of us has Facebook profiles, or Twitter feeds that are personalized depending on our interests; it resembles social media.
The idea that we share a shared watching experience has distinguished television from cinema. You debate whether the film was excellent after seeing the season finale or watching the same movie with everyone. Since it was completely customized to whatever the data believe our interests are, we may now watch two different versions of the same movie and like them both.
That’s a valid issue, and I agree. They now have the technology to go back inside, you guessed it, “Citizen Kane,” and personalize it in addition to the new movies suited to your watching preferences. Give me a different “Citizen Kane,” and give you a new “Citizen Kane.”
That is incorrect in so many ways. First, as you mentioned, it is impossible to discuss a common experience even though we saw the same movie at separate times. It rapes the filmmaker and everyone else involved by entirely ruining what they built. You won’t see anything fresh if you do all this while employing generative AI in entertainment.
I think the artists are the channels via which God, the cosmos, magic, or anything else you want to name it enters society. And throughout history, you have seen it. Sometimes particular artwork, music, or films mirror society, but frequently they have the opposite effect and bring about change.
It makes you think.
It makes you think. And when you introduce generative AI to the arts, you shut that off, leaving you to breathe recirculated air exclusively. You will always receive something new after that.
Does the government have a mechanism to fight back against some of this? What role can the government play in this situation that feels or looks useful, whether through businesses employing AI to replace workers or even legal protections for creative works employed by AI?
There are a few things I’d want to see that would be beneficial. And as I already stated, I’m still determining what can be done to halt the disaster I believe is on the horizon. However, I would like the Federal Trade Commission to take a more active role in dismantling some of these monopolies.
The Paramount decrees, which prevented studios from owning theaters and movie theaters, and the Financial Interests and Syndication Rules regulations, which were in place until the middle of the 1990s and prevented networks from creating original content, are things I’d want to see reinstated.
When you had that separation, you could produce a lot of original television shows that the showrunners could hawk around to all the other networks and force them to compete against one another, at least under the Fin-Syn laws. And throughout that period, there was a lot of uniqueness. I’d want to see the Fin-Syn regulations reinstated, so companies like Netflix could only be producers or distributors, not both.
Additionally, I’d like to see the Copyright Office swoop down on these AI-powered film production enterprises. The worst copyright breach in American history would be if they had included 100 years’ worth of cinema and television history, or, you know, TV doesn’t go back that far, but essentially 100 years’ worth of filmed entertainment.
That is something that the Copyright Office is wrangling with right now. One more question for you, please. However, that can be the most challenging query. Art and AI don’t go together; I’ve heard it. What benefit may artificial intelligence (AI) have in the entertainment industry if I challenge you to name one?
I will admit that I have seen it utilized in experimental videos, and in that context, you can see how bizarre and surreal the outcomes are. That makes for an intriguing experimental video. However, those adding generative AI to movies don’t know what movies and TV shows are for. After generative AI takes over our business, you won’t be able to see some of your favorite movies or even movies that changed your life. Source
