“I’m increasingly inclined to think there should be some regulatory oversight, maybe at the national and international levels, just to make sure we don’t do something very foolish. I mean, with A.I., we’re summoning the devil.”

–Elon Musk

Probably like many of you, when I read about the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and Writers Guild of America (WGA) strikes, I yawned and moved on. Harbor sympathy for a bunch of rich and self-absorbed folks on the Left Coast? Who has time, or even cares? We’ve got Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Peacock, and other streaming services, as well as enough episodes of our favorite shows DVR’ed to keep us entertained until this Hollywood crowd gets back to work. Right?

Think harder. The majority of these folks on strike are camera operators, screenwriters, editors, grips, makeup artists, and people who do other rather mundane, behind-the-scene jobs. They’re people who put in a full day’s work, just like many of us. And they earn just a modicum of what the best-known actors make.

Most of the actors on strike go from gig to gig, just trying to make a living. Some big names are walking the line–more to support the strike and publicize the unions’ grievances, I suspect.

The strikers list the usual complaints about benefits and pay. The latter has been hugely impacted by the gradual shift from standard or cable television to streaming services. Royalties are impacted. Take-home pay is reduced. But the strikes are also about artificial intelligence–A.I.–and that’s a significant and legitimate concern.

Imagine a digital image of Tom Cruise that could be made to perform the stunts for which Cruise is so famous. Would it be as thrilling to watch if we knew it was created with software and not actually performed by the real Tom? Would that diminish our enjoyment of the Mission Impossible movies?

Or consider this: Someone could direct A.I. to write a screenplay about an ophidiophobic (“Ugh. Snakes. It had to be snakes!”) arkeology professor who goes on a quest to locate the Arch of the Covenant. After the most primitive of A.I.–spellcheck–corrected the spellings of archaeology and Ark, within minutes at least a rough outline of the script could be spit out. How would Lawrence Kasdan, the Indiana Jones screenwriter, feel about that? As a writer, he’d be diminished or, even worse, no longer needed and thrown into the slush pile of genuine talents.

A.I. is a threat to us all, and it may be the 21st Century’s digital version of Frankenstein. Even the developers are trying to slow its use. But it’s tough to put the toothpaste back in the tube once it’s squeezed out into our lives. Is this what we want?

Do we want A.I., not authors, writing books; A.I., not artists, creating works of art; and digital images, not real people, appearing on the big screen? Rest assured the creators of cultural content don’t. If you don’t either, then a little more grace might be warranted for the SAG and WGA members.

But let’s make it relevant to our everyday lives, since most of us will never work in the film industry. Do we want our children and grandchildren to be able to produce a school paper on a simple command? Do we want their accomplishments to be the product of arduous study and application or the result of artificial means? It sounds far-fetched, but is it?

Full disclosure: I was a master procrastinator in high school. When I sat at a manual Smith Corona at midnight before my term paper was due the next day, I would have welcomed A.I. with open arms! It speaks poorly of the teenage me, and bodes poorly for A.I.’s potential for misuse by some today. If adults default to it, don’t you think children will?

God gave humans the gift of intelligence–minds that supersede those of all other living creatures. And humans have done great things. But sometimes we push the envelope farther than intended. Advances in medicine, for example, have given us a much better quality of life, cured diseases, and prolonged lifespans. But some of those advances are arguably counterintuitive to the benefit of mankind (Maybe fodder for another blog post?). Knowing our limits is paramount.

In the same way, the developers of A.I. are saying we should slow down, apply reasoned thought and debate to A.I.’s role in our lives, and make sure its use is in man’s best interest. As it relates to their professions, this is, in part, what the Hollywood strikers are arguing for.

And, while we’re betting the ranch on another season of Yellowstone, or hanging on the pinky promise of a Barbie 2.0, think about how we’ll react when A.I. comes knocking at our doors. In a way similar to the strikers’ protests, perhaps?

How soon that will be? I have no idea. But I’m pretty sure it’s coming.

I hope I’m wrong.