As artificial intelligence becomes less discernible and more prevalent, Vince Gilligan is setting an example about transparency in Hollywood.
The Pluribus creator, whose new show premiered the first two episodes Friday on Apple TV+, made sure to note in the credits of the post-apocalyptic sci-fi series that the production did not rely on AI.
“This show was made by humans,” reads the credits, following a list of acknowledgments from the producers.
Watch on Deadline
Related Stories
In Pluribus, Rhea Seehorn plays Albuquerque author Carol Sturka, one of 12 people on Earth who is immune to an extraterrestrial virus that transforms everyone in the world into a relentlessly optimistic hive mind.
Gilligan previously slammed AI as he discussed the series. “I have not used ChatGPT, because as of yet, no one has held a shotgun to my head and made me do it,” he told Polygon.
“I will never use it. No offense to anyone who does,” added Gilligan. “I really wasn’t thinking about AI [when I wrote Pluribus], because this was about eight or 10 years ago.”
Meanwhile, Coca-Cola has faced backlash this week for another AI-generated holiday campaign, and the entertainment industry has expressed concern over AI creations like Tilly Norwood replacing human actors and other crew members.
Taking a stance is what is needed in theses times.That way a language around this topic forms, so we can choose what we want to support. In my case the choise is clear, only ‘made by humans’ content – as much as possible. Why? Well bacause I am one..Hope there are some institutions to verify and oversee this who can then label it accordingly. So ‘Made by AI’ would be the cheaper alternative but it’s like with food, you can choose what you pick and it’s clearly labled, like ‘Fair trade’ etc. Just brainstorming here but hey ;)
It’s time for the WGA and all writers to stop viewing AI as the bogeyman. It has it’s uses – and they are allmost all non-creative uses – that are no different than a word processor or grammar check only more sophisticated. This conversation has been totally hypocritical. Is AI potentially problematic? Yep. But writers should be the test pilots and not the scared sheep – like in the space program. Saying something was made by humans is facile: AI was made by humans. Embracing technology is necessary and a little scary. If we switch the power dynamic we may find the tech useful. Not to replace, but to aid. It seems strangely dystopian to use all technologies in your art-form except one because fools started a narrative based on fear. Does Vince Gilligan write with Final Draft, or is he sitting in a log cabin by candlelight with a feather and ink? Enough with the fear – own the tech, use it, exploit it. Ideas are the key, hard work is the engine. AI is a tool. The power is ours IF we make the choice to control it.
Oh come on. Final Draft is a formatting tool. It does not generate content.
Well said!
Yes! This made me like it more!
Same here
The fact that you have to specify in the credits that a show wasn’t made using AI means it’s indistinguishable and you know it, otherwise there wouldn’t have been any need. Good luck with that.
Completely disagree. It feels like virtue signaling to include because guess what, AI still sucks and they couldn’t have made this with AI even if they wanted to. We give too much power to the narrative by making it seem like AI even could replace artists yet. It can’t. It can create incredibly short, bad, uncanny valley clips, and it can clean up your incoherent work emails. The stuff AI can actually be meaningfully used for on a film right now would not infringe on real human work, and is mostly digital clean up and effects stuff. Who cares?
Where’s the evidence that “AI still sucks?” If anything, the fault lies in not knowing how to use it well, not checking for errors, and not refining the work. As for this story, Pluribus, “made by humans”? Poorly done, then, there are many plot holes.