With the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies seemingly having a greater impact every day than the one which preceded it, its capabilities and uses are expanding rapidly. Whether it’s a section of an essay, piece of artwork, entire YouTube channel, or potentially, even NHS efficiency, AI is taking over step-by-step. Yet just as quickly as it takes hold, people are taking a stand against it, with the movement finally reaching our own campus.
In their recent AGM, the Sheffield University Theatre Company (SUTCo) passed an amendment to their constitution, prohibiting the use of AI for society activities. The group’s 15th and final article of their constitution now makes clear that AI cannot be used for “script materials [or] publicity of the society and its activities […] under enforcement by the publicity coordinator”. The amendment even extends to stating repercussions for such uses, including the material being unendorsed, and replacements needing to be created by a different person. Heavy-handed, or getting a head start?
SUTCo is the first of our creative societies off the mark on regulating AI use, which is taking hold elsewhere, including in promotional materials. But they are not the first in the industry. Back in October, thousands of industry professionals, creatives and celebrities joined together to state their opposition to creative works used to train generative AI models. In February, major U.K. newspapers ran blanket front pages featuring the ‘Make It Right’ campaign, in protest against the loss of AI protections in the media and other creative industries.
So what’s the risk? And why is everyone so up in arms all of a sudden? Well, this issue is not a new one. Ever since generative AI began to take hold, and particularly since the rise of ChatGPT, creatives worldwide have seen the risk that these technologies pose on their way of life. Generative AI, despite producing heavily flawed results, can achieve what it takes a human extensively longer to create. A script or artwork that would take hundreds of hours can now be done instantly and for free, besides of course the environmental and moral impact this brings.
But it’s even closer to home that the significant threat seems to be rising. In December 2024, the Departments for Science, Innovation & Technology, and Culture, Media & Sport launched a (now-closed) consultation into how AI is regulated, developed and interacts with creative industries. But the part that warranted most alarm was the consideration to create an exception to existing copyright legislation, to allow for “text and data mining”, and moving to an opt-out approach for our creatives.
Essentially, allowing big tech companies to use existing works to train their AI systems, to make them more reliable, accurate and human-like, and making it a requirement for creatives to opt themselves and their works out of this, as opposed to prior permission needing to be obtained. Understandably, this sent many in the industry to take a stand against AI, a call which is gaining increasing traction.
But looking back to our own students, SUTCo particularly, as well as the University of Sheffield Light Entertainment Society (USLES) are well-known for platforming student writing and creativity. All three of USLES’ productions this year are student-written as well as four of SUTCo’s, if we include their upcoming Edinburgh Fringe production Peace Circle, consisting of half of their 2024/25 production portfolio. The rising incidents of AI being used, and rewarded, is clearly having its impact, which SUTCo appears keen to be heading off.
It was only last month that both Emilia Pérez and The Brutalist, both blockbuster films that used AI for various tasks in their production processes, won Oscars for their ‘work’, showing that AI is now reaching eligibility in international awards. Granted, none of the AI-specific elements were rewarded with a victory, but now that creativity that uses AI is winning on this scale, the question is now: ‘At what point is AI contribution too great to win awards?’.
And this is without even considering the environmental impact of Artificial Intelligence. AI use draws significant energy and water use, even for the simplest of requests, and even then generates, by many metrics, sub-par results for its users. By employing the ‘talents’ of generative AI, its users are accelerating contributions to the climate crisis, whilst simultaneously diluting the work of our creatives, students or otherwise, through their actions. And at the end of the day, if AI begins to take a significant hold of our creative production, it will be the individuals and start-ups who pay most dearly for the decisions.
It is unclear what exactly drove SUTCo’s taking of this decision right now, but their amendment has made their position clear. AI is set to wreak mayhem on the livelihoods of so many within our industries, and it needs as many voices as possible to fight against its development. SUTCo’s position is clear. Thousands of creatives’ positions are clear. Even national newspapers, with their varying affiliations and interests have made their positions clear. The next step? Students need to join in the fight, as does the Students’ Union.
