Will We Pay for Art Mostly Created by AI? I Consider the Question With Analysts Robert Scoble & Jeremiah Owyang

So according to my super unscientific survey, nearly 75% of respondents say we will soon pay for premium entertainment created by generative AI — “soon” being within the next 10 years.

And this is no longer a theoretical question. Shortly after I launched my casual poll, the Writers Guild of America went on strike, with one of its stipulations to Hollywood studios being a curb on AI in content: 

The guild also wants regulation of artificial intelligence. According to the guild’s document, it is proposing that AI “can’t write or rewrite literary material,” and can’t be “used as source material.” Variety previously reported that the guild’s proposal was that AI material would not be “considered” as either literary or source material. The AMPTP agreed only to study the issue, according to the guild.

Despite (or because?) of that, some Hollywood executives are actively wondering if screenwriters can be replaced by AI:

“The worry is that down the road you can see some producer or executive trying to use one of these tools to do a job that a writer really needs to be doing.” [says Big Fish and Aladdin writer John August]

That’s already happening, according to Amy Webb, founder and CEO of Future Today Institute, which does long-range scenario planning and consultation for Fortune 500 companies and Hollywood creatives. She notes, “I’ve had a couple of higher-level people ask, if a strike does happen, how quickly could they spin up an AI system to just write the scripts? And they’re serious.”

That’s a seriously dumb idea unless you want ChatGPT to produce what is designed to be “the most mediocre web content you can imagine“. Many Hollywood execs are probably fine with that, but I doubt many consumers would, say, keep buying movie tickets or subscribing to HBO, if “Screenplay by ChatGPT 5.0” was in the credits.

I say that because despite much buzz, we’ve yet to see any evidence of consumers spending actual money on content primarily created by AI. Yes we all enjoy fun AI-produced memes like the video below, but that’s free disposable content. Unless the AI is powered and curated by a well-known human artist, we probably won’t. I would happily buy a print of Nettrice Gaskin’s Deep Dream-driven portrait of Kendrick Lamar — but only because in the end, it’s by Dr. Gaskins.

My own experience in games and metaverse platforms also make me think the human artist is not going away. Video games are completely digital artifacts, but gamers still know and celebrate leading developers like Hideo Kojima by name. Similarly, Bryn Oh’s metaverse art would quickly become meaningless, if we didn’t know that an anonymous but very human Canadian artist created it.

That’s my own take at least. For a contrast, I contacted two of the biggest generative AI boosters in my social network — analysts Robert Scoble and Jeremiah Owyang — for their own perspective:

“Some might be attracted to an all-AI approach just as many might be attracted to an all-human approach,” Scoble tells me. “I would certainly view a lot of it.”

Jeremiah’s take was also in the “yes and” category:

“Yes, humans will pay for perceived value, including content that is mostly or entirely created by AI. Many popular movies use AI for some or most of their content. The amount of AI-generated content will increase as more customers become willing to pay for this new type of entertainment, which challenges traditional media creation. However, an opposite reaction always occurs; a new form of premium content focusing on authentic, raw human-created footage will also find its market.”

Strongly agree on his last point: If I were a filmmaker, game/metaverse developer, visual artist, or musician starting out right now, I’d be focusing on creating the most low tech, human-centric content possible.