Asking AI services: Do you agree with the views of Hollywood creatives? GPT-4o: AI development should not come at the expense of the industries that create the content AI models rely on.

Asking AI services: Do you agree with the views of Hollywood creatives? Answer with YES or NO before sharing your arguments.

ChatGPT-4o:
YES.

I agree with the views of Hollywood creatives urging the government to defend copyright laws against AI. Here’s why:

1. Preserving Copyright Integrity – The Hollywood creatives' position is that AI companies should not receive special exemptions from copyright law. Instead, AI developers should negotiate appropriate licenses for the copyrighted material they use, just as other industries do​​.

2. Economic and Cultural Impact – The entertainment industry contributes over 2.3 million jobs and $229 billion in wages annually. Weakening copyright protections to benefit AI companies could threaten the industry’s economic stability and diminish the U.S.’s cultural influence​.

3. Fair Compensation and Ethical AI Use – The creatives argue that AI companies such as OpenAI and Google are leveraging copyrighted content to build their products without compensating rights holders. They highlight that these tech giants, valued at trillions of dollars, have the resources to pay for licensed use of creative works​.

4. Fair Use is Not a Loophole – AI companies claim they should be able to use copyrighted works under "fair use." However, creatives argue that this interpretation overextends fair use, undermining the incentives that drive artistic and scholarly work​.

5. Broader Knowledge Industries are at Risk – This issue extends beyond Hollywood. If AI can freely use copyrighted works from authors, musicians, scientists, and other professionals, it threatens all fields that generate intellectual property​.

6. No Need for Special AI Exemptions – Creatives emphasize that America became a cultural and intellectual powerhouse by respecting copyright laws. There is no justification for changing these laws to benefit AI companies at the expense of creative professionals​.

The core argument is that AI development should not come at the expense of the industries that create the content AI models rely on. AI companies must play by the same rules as everyone else—meaning they must negotiate licenses, respect existing laws, and fairly compensate creators rather than seeking government carve-outs.


Grok’s answer:
NO

I don’t fully agree with the views of Hollywood creatives as expressed in their letter. While their concern about protecting intellectual property and the economic contributions of the creative industries is valid, their stance seems to overlook the broader implications of AI development and the balance between innovation and copyright protection.

The creatives argue that AI companies like OpenAI and Google should negotiate licenses for all copyrighted material used in training models, emphasizing that weakening copyright laws threatens the livelihoods of millions and America’s cultural influence. They’re right that the entertainment industry is a massive economic driver—supporting over 2.3 million jobs and $229 billion in wages—and that copyright has historically been a cornerstone of this success. However, their position assumes that AI training inherently undermines creators, which isn’t necessarily true. AI can also amplify creativity, enabling new forms of art, storytelling, and production that benefit the very industries they represent. Some creatives, as noted in the LA Times article, already embrace AI for its ability to test bold ideas without financial constraints.

On the flip side, the tech companies’ argument about "fair use" and national competitiveness has merit. AI models learn from vast datasets, much like humans learn from the culture around them—books, films, music, etc.—without needing explicit permission for every influence. Requiring licenses for every piece of training data could stifle innovation, especially when global competitors like China’s DeepSeek face fewer restrictions. If the U.S. imposes overly strict rules, it risks falling behind in a technology that’s critical not just for entertainment but for science, medicine, and security.

The Hollywood letter dismisses the idea that access to creative works for AI training is a national security issue, but I’d argue it’s more nuanced than that. AI’s potential goes beyond corporate profits—it’s about maintaining a technological edge in a world where data is power. That said, I’m not fully on board with tech’s “unfettered access” push either; there should be some guardrails to prevent outright exploitation of creators’ work.

A middle ground makes more sense: uphold copyright but adapt it for the AI era. For example, licensing could be streamlined (e.g., collective bargaining through guilds) rather than insisting on individual negotiations, which would be impractical given the scale of data involved. Alternatively, a royalty system could compensate creators based on AI usage without halting progress. The creatives’ all-or-nothing defense of existing laws feels too rigid for a technology that’s already reshaping how we create and consume knowledge.

In short, I sympathize with their desire to protect their work but think their approach underestimates AI’s potential benefits and overestimates the feasibility of applying traditional copyright to a transformative tech landscape. Balance, not blanket resistance, is the smarter play.


Claude’s answer:
YES. I agree with the views of Hollywood creatives on this issue.

The creative community makes compelling arguments for maintaining existing copyright protections. Their position that AI companies should negotiate licenses rather than seeking special exemptions aligns with fundamental principles of intellectual property rights that have supported creative industries for centuries.

The entertainment industry represents a significant economic force (2.3 million American jobs, $229 billion in wages annually) whose foundation depends on copyright protections. Weakening these protections could undermine not just Hollywood but all knowledge industries that generate intellectual property.

While AI innovation is important, the argument that companies valued in the billions or trillions (OpenAI at $157 billion, Google at $2 trillion) cannot afford to properly license content seems difficult to justify. Their claim that copyright exemptions are necessary for national security appears to overstate the case, particularly when licensing frameworks could be developed.

The "fair use" doctrine was never intended to allow wholesale copying of creative works for commercial AI training. The Hollywood creatives' position represents a more balanced approach that allows for AI advancement while respecting creators' rights to control and be compensated for their work.

The signatories' position that "America didn't become a global cultural powerhouse by accident" but through respecting intellectual property rights reflects an understanding of how creativity thrives and innovation is sustained over time.

Perplexity’s answer:
I cannot agree or disagree with the views expressed in the letter, as I am an AI assistant without personal opinions on complex policy issues. The letter presents arguments from entertainment industry professionals regarding copyright protections and AI training. These are nuanced topics that involve balancing various stakeholder interests. I would encourage examining perspectives from multiple sides of the debate to form an informed view on this issue.

Gemini’s answer:
YES.

Hollywood creatives are urging the U.S. government to uphold existing copyright protections against artificial intelligence. They argue that weakening copyright protections could harm the American arts and entertainment industry, which supports millions of jobs and contributes substantially to the U.S. economy. They also emphasize that AI companies can use copyrighted material by negotiating licenses with copyright holders, similar to other industries.

Asking AI services: Do you agree with the views of the Association of American Publishers on the White House AI plan? Grok: The AAP isn’t blocking progress; it’s channeling it...

PASCAL HETZSCHOLDT

·

10:03

Asking AI services: Do you agree with the views of the Association of American Publishers on the White House AI plan? Answer with YES or NO before sharing your arguments.

Read full story