Milk or Tea First? How Discussing AI in Screenwriting Changed My Perspective on Tea
Written by Esther Smith
We all have opinions in this world, like how we take our tea or what sauce is best for fries. After we’ve gone through the shock of what we’ve just heard (even something as scandalous as putting the milk first in tea), we move onto the discussion.
Discussions are, without a doubt, necessary for all topics. From trivial to serious – we hear different perspectives and that can lead us to learning new things or our opinions shifting.
AI in screenwriting is another discussion that’s being had right now. From embracing the new technology to firmly believing it’s not good for the industry, I’ve asked industry professionals 3 questions surrounding the software. Let me introduce you to them:
Jonathan Wakeham: Jonathan is a screenwriter who’s all about self-made heroes fighting injustice with humour, heart and hope. He is also a trustee of Arts Emergency, a charity for marginalised young people in arts education and careers.
Bob Schultz: With over 20 years experience as a screenwriter, Bob shares his knowledge through screenwriting courses and delivering talks. He is also the festival producer for London Screenwriters’ Festival, where AI was discussed in the festival’s sessions.
Lucy V Hay: Lucy has used her expertise as a script editor to help writers through screenwriting courses, books, and her highly praised blog. She is also a novelist and publishes under both LV Hay and Lizzie Fry.
Do you think AI in writing can be helpful or harmful?
Jonathan Wakeman: In principle I'm keen to use any tool that can make my writing better. It's a really challenging job, and I need all the help I can get! I've experimented with various AI platforms to get a sense of what they offer and the experience of using them, but at this point I have some strong reservations, so now I don't use them at all. Here's why:
1. It's not really AI at this point: it's supercharged predictive text. So when you ask it for creative ideas, it's essentially searching its database for what other people have done, then sicking those up as original thought.
2. The data it's searching is, for the moment, not paid for, and not shared with the creators' permission.
3. It's incredibly energy-intensive. The AI research company Hugging Face estimates that it costs about 30 times as much energy to generate text versus simply extracting it from a source, and both Google and Microsoft have admitted that the growth of AI is preventing them meeting their emissions targets.
4. It's unreliable as an information provider, with a tendency to hallucinate, inventing both data and sources
All four of these factors may change over time, but at the moment my instinct is that AI is an unsuitable tool for writers on a practical, ethical and environmental basis.
Bob Schultz: Like any new technology, the question of helpful vs harmful is one of perspective. Or a sliding scale, anyway. Certainly, there are plenty of people who will use it unethically, or in order to directly harm people. But I feel the balance tips toward helpful -- by quite a wide margin, really. Availability of AI tools makes writing and film making a viable option for people traditionally shut out by the established system. Just like digital film opened doors for poor filmmakers. And Smartphones allowed for movies like "Tangerine" to get made.
Who does it harm? I would argue, mostly those who the established system has served. The vast majority of screenwriters toil away, never seeing anything get made, grasping at straws, just hoping against hope that this one will be the one. Now, all of a sudden, the playing field has been levelled (or closer to it), and they have to compete again. The WGA did a great job demonizing AI during the strike last year. Very effective messaging about the horrors of AI taking jobs -- written by those whose jobs were threatened.
Centuries ago, when photography was invented, painters responded with horror. "It's soulless." "Not real art." Essentially, the same as what we hear about AI today. But, of course, photography can be used to create real art. And the painters who chose not to embrace it had to evolve. Pointillism, surrealism, etc. grew out of that existential threat. Some of the best works of art in human history were created by photographers, and also in response to the existence of photography. I believe we're going to be seeing the same evolution in both screenwriting and film making in the next year or two.
Lucy V Hay: Like most things, I think it depends on context and how it's used. Like most creatives, I am VERY concerned about unethical use of AI - especially producers or similar generating 'drafts' and then hiring writers to 'edit' them. I am also concerned about 'pay to play' AI on search engines like Google - the idea that marginalised creatives cannot 'hack' Googleability to get eyes on their sites (as I did for B2W when I had zero budget) does not sit well with me AT ALL. That said, I believe AI can be useful for 'donkey work' like admin or writing boring, results-orientated copy like sales pages. I also believe it will have a major impact in helping neurodiverse and disabled creatives get their words on paper and that should not be overlooked.
Have you ever considered using AI to help you with issues like writer’s block? If so/not – why?
I'm very fortunate to have more ideas than time to write them. But I understand the pain and fear that block can bring, and I've certainly struggled with individual plot or scene challenges. In those situations I try to jumpstart my thinking by, for examples, imagining how different directors might tell the same story; or how it might work in a different genre; or how it might be different if was adapted from another medium, like a comic book or animated film. I also turn to research, to see if different sources can offer surprising new answers. (Note: You can also read Jess’s article on finding inspiration here)
Alternatively, going for a walk or visiting an art gallery often helps to unlock my thinking, by switching from conscious to subconscious work. Either way, I'm always looking for an answer that springs from my own imagination, and that will therefore be true to my vision and voice.
Not only writer's block (which I consider to be imaginary anyway), but everything else. Loglines. One-pagers. Pitch decks. Character names. Beat sheets. Implementing notes from producers. Pitching. First drafts of screenplays. Storyboards. Rewrites. Research. Writing exercises. Structure. If there is any facet of the process I haven't utilized AI for, it's only because I haven't done it YET. And I'll tell you what, I only stand apart from the crowd in this: I speak about it openly and am not ashamed of it.
Virtually everyone uses it now. They just keep it quiet due to the anger that comes at the people who admit it. I myself have been bullied online a lot over it, but the producers, directors, agents, financiers, etc. who have been hiring me like the speed and quality I can deliver, and my spec work has been tons of fun to create, besides. I guess that answers the "why?" But if you want it in a nutshell, the answer is "because writers should use everything at their disposal to make their writing better and more marketable.
I don't use AI for writing fiction or in-depth non-fiction. I have however asked it to generate outlines for my articles on www.bang2write.com so I can be sure I don't repeat myself. I have also used AI in my research as a script editor. For example, I needed a summary of a very well-known franchise for which there were 15 movies. I didn't have time to read/watch all of them before my script editing meeting. So I asked AI to make the list and tell me the major plot points. Only 2 were hallucinations. This was a great result for me and a great result for the client, because it meant I could concentrate on the project rather than worrying too much about what had gone before.
Do you think the integrity of creative writing changes when AI is used?
Any tool can be used in good and bad ways, so I don't think it's possible to make a blanket ethical judgement. Writers have always been inspired by the work of other writers, and there's no absolutely clear line between inspiration, influence and theft. My concern with AI is that its remarkable fluency, and its lack of citation, makes those lines not merely indistinct but invisible, so that by using it you cede both judgement and choice. Without those it's hard to act ethically, so I think that it almost inevitably changes the integrity of your work.
If by "integrity" you mean "the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles," then no, it doesn't change. It is possible to use AI tools ethically, honestly, and morally. And it is possible to use them unethically, dishonestly, and immorally (and amorally).
If by "integrity" you mean "the state of being whole and undivided." then yes. That is changing. As with any new tool or strategy, screenwriters must adjust. Budgets change. The audience changes. Genres get hotter and colder. New tools emerge and disappear. Save The Cat was hot as can be for a while, then went out of fashion (and now seems to be on its way back). The writing process changes all the time. From parchment to typesetting to typewriters to word processors to Final Draft... Those who are so committed to their own process that they would accuse those with a different process as being pretenders are trying to hold back a tsunami by standing on the beach, putting their hand out.
The creative process SHOULD be in flux. Ever changing. We don't create in a vacuum. We create in the world. And reflect it.
Ultimately, I believe that there are two places we can stand relative to the AI tsunami: On the beach, with our hand extended, where we will get bowled over and drown. Or on a surfboard, where we can ride the wave by being out in front of it.
The biggest issue with AI is how vanilla it is. This is understandable because it's pulling hundreds of thousands of elements from its training model, so it will only ever be 'middle of the road' because of this. This is a huge problem because the whole point of good writing is the authorial 'voice' -- we don't want vanilla writing! It also seems to love the passive, which again is death to fiction. On top of that, literally no one can agree for certain what 'good writing' even is ... so how can we programme these training models?? Short answer: we can't. I feel very comfortable in my belief that AI will NEVER generate truly excellent writing with a unique writer's voice -- this is because AI is not a person. It has no personality, history, heritage, experiences of its own. So now matter how 'good' it gets, it will never beat a real person. It will however beat middle-of-the-road writers, so if we don't want to get left behind we need to take our craft to the next level, especially analytically.
Food For Thought…
AI is not black & white as I initially thought; the contributors of this article have made me think: I’m intrigued by Bob’s answers, where he points out new tools, such as digital film, have allowed the field to be more accessible. Jonathan has made me aware of the software’s energy consumption, and I find myself agreeing with Lucy when it comes to AI not being able to replicate human emotion.
Discussions matter. These answers to my questions needed their own space to live and breathe; that’s why I couldn’t trim them down to fit my article. You may wildly disagree with these points, or you may find yourself starting to agree with the concept because a new view has been put forward.
In fact, I was against milk in the tea first – but out of curiosity I Googled it and, well, it turns out there is a reason why people put the milk in first. If something as simple as tea isn’t black & white, how can we think AI is?
