The Futuristic Mind of Stephen King: Embracing AI's Potential While Honoring TV Writers' Worries

Summary

Stephen King isn't afraid of AI replacing writers because he believes AI can't meet the same quality as humans.

King argues that AI-authored scripts, although somewhat entertaining, cannot match the impact of scripts written by humans. While certain writers express concerns about AI's impact on the industry, King's perspective offers a glimmer of hope, suggesting that AI's inability to possess sentience prevents it from truly capturing the essence of storytelling.

Stephen King confidently dismisses any concerns about AI replacing writers, providing his own perspective to Rolling Stone. The esteemed author, who has witnessed his stories successfully adapted into iconic films such as The Shining, Carrie, and Stand by Me, remains steadfast in his belief. The recent release of The Boogeyman, a hit indie horror film based on one of King's short stories, as well as the creation of two short films inspired by his works (I Know What You Need and All That You Love), further bolster his position. King, known for openly sharing his insights on the writing profession, has even published a comprehensive book on the craft, titled On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft.

In his conversation with Rolling Stone, King elaborates on why AI's rise does not spark fear within him. While he acknowledges the concerns surrounding AI's impact on screenwriters and writers, King stands firm in his conviction that AI lacks the ability to truly compose. Comparing artificially generated scripts to those crafted by human hands, he draws a sharp distinction, likening the difference to that between Budweiser and a generic beer – in other words, AI's output is noticeably inferior in quality. To gain deeper insight into King's perspective, read the complete quote below.

I understand the concerns surrounding AI in relation to screenwriters and TV writers. There is an underlying fear that AI has been responsible for creating sitcoms and some drama series, as they often follow a predictable formula. However, when it comes to AI-generated books and scripts, there isn't much that can be done to prevent it. It's like trying to halt the inevitable, similar to King Canute's attempt to stop the tide.

Personally, I find it highly unlikely that AI can truly write anything until it attains genuine consciousness, which is still a long way off. I've come across AI-generated poems in the style of William Blake, but they lack the same essence and depth. It's like comparing Budweiser to a generic beer - both may have a slight intoxicating effect, but they are not on par with each other.

Is Stephen King's AI Take Comforting To Writers?

Screenwriters have expressed their concerns about AI ever since the Writers Guild of America (WGA) proposed guidelines on its use in scripts. The WGA emphasizes that AI devices like ChatGPT are not to be classified as "literary material" or "source material," but rather as a tool to assist in script creation. The guild aims to ensure that AI does not impact writer residuals or accreditation. Despite these assurances, there is still a lingering fear, as described by King, that AI may eventually replace writers, particularly for more formulaic content. However, King remains hopeful, noting that AI's lack of "sentience" prevents it from achieving the same depth of emotion and artistic goals as humans. While AI can capture basic elements of artwork, such as the "God stuff" in William Blake's poetry, it falls short when it comes to rendering an authentic story arc or language.

Stephen King's opinions can provide hope for writers. However, true comfort may only be experienced in the future if an algorithmically enhanced ChatGPT does not encroach upon writers' earnings. The ongoing WGA strike, lasting over 4 months, has already presented writers with the challenge of negotiating residual payments. This issue is likely to become even more pressing if AI initiates a takeover.