You claim to be a ghostwriter.
I didn't say I am a ghostwriter but rather that I have written professionally as a ghostwriter. I didn't say how often or for how long. (The answer is one brief job a few years ago, but you said "never," so...)
I'm curious, why are you fighting so hard to put yourself out of business?
If you were a lamplighter, a silent movie actor, or a switchboard operator, would you oppose automatic streetlights, sound pictures, or automatic phonelines? Maybe, but you'd be fighting a losing battle if you did. The current conflicts will inevitably go the same way.
And don't go spouting off that other authors agree.
Some do; see citations above. Also refer to my comment about a friend of mine who worked as a translator for over a decade. He thinks AI will end his translation career but thinks AI translation has immense utility. He does other work now and always has.
There's a lawsuit filed by the author's guild you should take a look at to see what REAL authors think about AI.
What "REAL" authors think is frankly entirely irrelevant, because AI is indeed transformative fair use according to established law and so the Authors Guild lawsuit is likely to fail. Even if it doesn't—and even if all "bad" AI was banned—people would still continue to use it no matter what. Artificial intelligences far more powerful than the ones currently running on supercomputers and massive server arrays will eventually run locally on $50 smartphones. Whether for better or worse, there's simply no stopping it.
Just think how many jobs would be lost if those dozens to hundreds of people decided to produce their own AI aided movies and put them out in the world?
Then, the only people making money will be the land owners who grow food that is planted, cultivated, harvested, processed and shipped to markets all by automation run by AI. No employees involved.
Or, no one needs to work for a living any longer and is free to pursue their own interests as AI and robotics become more ubiquitous than smartphones and home appliances are today and we transition into a resource-based postscarcity society with universal basic income like (supposedly) the Federation. People might have to fight for it and the transition probably won't be smooth, but I don't see how automation
wouldn't eventually obviate any need for human labor if we look ahead centuries and millennia. Do you really think people will still be concerned with making a living even after a million years of technological advancement? Surely not, and the transition must begin at some point.
Fair use is whatever the judge assigned your case says it is.
Ha! Largely true...
But independent film with the budgets of studio film doesn't yet exist except for Besson's
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, Lucas'
Star Wars prequel trilogy, Jackson's
Lord of the Rings trilogy, and Coppola's
Megalopolis. New technologies are beginning to bridge that gap, resulting in films like
The Creator, which
"made $80 million look like $300 million," an entirely positive development. The people who made it could not afford $300 million, so they couldn't have hired an additional $220 million worth of people, so no one was actually put out of work. Eventually, it will be possible to make $8 million and then $80,000 and then $8,000 and then $800 look like $300 million. Most people could afford to make a movie for $800 but not for $300 million, so they wouldn't be denying people $300 million of work.
If you write a screenplay and use AI to "film" it, you're not making a film, you're just writing a screenplay. Making a film requires human decisions about camera angles and acting, and such. That's what a director does.
You're making a holonovel like Tom Paris with Captain Proton. That's the dream for many, being able to bring a script to audiovisual (or even omnisensorial) life as a single creator without need of a team. Decisions about camera angles and virtual actors' performances and such could still be made manually if desired.
