Research Note (1): Interactive AI and the Future of Video Game Work
People vs Machine
The Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), representing video game voice actors, went on strike on 26 July 2024. Central to the dispute is the implementation of artificial intelligence within the gaming industry. The strike specifically calls on major gaming companies, including Activision and EA, to agree to specific protections from the replacement of human actors with artificial intelligence (AI). The strike is affecting a considerable number of video games currently under production, though projects that have established interim agreements conforming to union stipulations are exempt. The strike may result in delayed releases for games requiring pending voice and motion-capture work (SAG-AFTRA, 2024).
SAG-AFTRA perceives the integration of artificial intelligence in the gaming industry as a significant threat to its members. The union is concerned that AI-driven game design tools could replace human artists, diminishing what they assert to be the unique, irreplaceable qualities of human performance. AI-generated performances, according to SAG-AFTRA, lack the originality, pathos, and humor that human actors bring through their ability to improvise, draw upon personal experiences, and collaborate creatively with writers and directors. The potential replacement of human actors with algorithmically generated approximations risks undermining the artistry and individuality of performances, reducing the emotional and experiential impact of the games.
A significant aspect of the union’s demands concerns the increasing use of Voice Synthesis and AI technologies. SAG-AFTRA seeks to establish explicit rules and compensation frameworks for the use of such technologies, particularly regarding the replication of an actor’s voice and likeness, to ensure fair compensation and control over how their likeness is employed in future technologies.
OpenAI’s utilization of a voice indistinguishable from that of Scarlett Johansson without her explicit consent highlights the ramifications of AI on the economic landscape of the creative arts. In response to the backlash, OpenAI disclosed records purporting that they had employed a different actress with a similar voice. This response, however, illuminates the tech industry’s underlying perception of creative work as interchangeable, implying that the unique contributions of individual artists are easily replaceable.
Author and techno-oracle Neal Stephenson best encapsulates this sentiment: “Actually ripping Scarlett Johansson off would have been a tacit admission that they needed her for some kind of special quality that only she possessed: ‘this artist can do something unique and irreplaceable; we couldn’t make a deal with her, so we did a shady thing.’ Replacing her with a soundalike says something different: ‘All that this woman really does, at the end of the day, is make certain sound patterns. Those can be simulated. Why would anyone pay for that?’” (Stephenson, 2024). This perspective not only undermines the intrinsic value of the artist’s unique talent but also poses significant implications for the future of creative labor in the age of AI.
The nuanced inflections and the emotional resonance that live actors bring to their roles are aspects that synthetic voice services still find difficult to replicate. However, it is questionable whether the industry will ever value this uniqueness in any meaningful way. The more probable outcome is a hybrid model where synthetic voices will not replace human actors entirely but will be used extensively to minimize costs. While real voices might still be appreciated for their authenticity, this appreciation is likely to be superficial.
Synthesized voices already occupy many roles, with licensing agreements that ostensibly ensure fair compensation and consent from the original voice actors. However, these agreements further commodify human labor, benefiting employers more than the performers, thus preserving the illusion of respecting human performance while exploiting it in its digitally synthesized form.
My colleague Bill Mihalopoulos introduced me to the philosophical discussion of property-in-person, which profoundly influenced my understanding of the work of European economist Yanis Varoufakis, both of whom significantly influenced how I understand life and work within the global cloud economy and shape my critique of the contemporary hegemony of platform monopolists.
The contemporary digital economy bears a striking resemblance to the historical process of Enclosure in England. From the 16th to 19th centuries, rural landed elites transformed the landscape by consolidating common lands into private ownership. This transformation primarily benefited wealthy landowners while enabling more efficient agricultural practices. However, Enclosure also significantly increased agricultural productivity at the cost of displacing rural peoples (peasants), fueling rural poverty and inmigration to urban areas, lowering urban wages, contributing to the rise of capitalism and the emergence of the urban working class.
In today’s digital economy, we witness a similar phenomenon. The consolidation of control by tech giants over digital platforms—spaces where individuals once freely interacted and created—mirrors the Enclosure movement’s impact on common lands. Just as peasants were displaced and their livelihoods subsumed under the control of landowners, digital workers find their labor increasingly controlled and commodified by platform monopolists. This modern Enclosure, what Varoufakis identifies as “technofeudalism,” restricts individual autonomy and redefines personal data and digital contributions as commodities owned and exploited by platform operators.
Varoufakis describes this shift from traditional capitalism to a system where digital platforms function similarly to feudal lords. In technofeudalism, wealth is accumulated through rent extraction rather than production. Digital platforms like Amazon, Google, and Facebook dominate by controlling the ecosystems where economic transactions occur, extracting rent from all activities within their digital domains (Varoufakis, 2021, 2023).
Building on Varoufakis’ historical analogy, I have been thinking about the concept of “digital property-in-person” to describe the relationship between individuals and their digital labor, data, and online presence. This concept would draw from philosophical discussions of property rights and personal sovereignty, suggesting that in the hegemonic Cloud-based work environment, an individual’s personal attributes, actions, data, and means of production should be understood as forms of property they inherently own and control. This notion challenges the current digital landscape, where such ownership is more illusory than real.
Nevertheless, the concept reflects the increasingly complex and contested relationship between individuals and the data they generate through their interactions with digital platforms. In the current landscape, personal data—such as browsing history, location data, and social media activity—could be understood as a form of digital property-in-person, belonging to the individuals who produce it. Yet, this ownership is often theoretical rather than practical, as control over this data is frequently relinquished to tech companies through opaque terms of service. These companies monetize the data without meaningful user consent, raising questions about whether individuals truly possess ownership rights over their digital footprints (Fairfield, 2017). While the idea of reclaiming this data is compelling, it remains more of a challenge than a reality in today’s digital economy.
Biometric information, including fingerprints, facial recognition, and genetic data, further complicates the notion of digital property-in-person. Although such data is deeply personal, the control individuals assume they have over it is often undermined by the practices of tech companies that collect and use this information beyond its original purpose. In this present reality, individuals frequently lose autonomy over their biometric data as it becomes another commodity for corporations to exploit. The assumption that users have control over their biometric information is challenged by the current dynamics, where corporate interests tend to dominate, often without the transparency or accountability that would safeguard personal sovereignty (Fairfield, 2017).
In cloud-based work environments, digital property-in-person extends to digital labor and the tools individuals use. Contributions like social media posts, videos, and blogs are inextricably linked to one’s digital identity, but control over these creations is often retained by the platforms that host them. Even though these contributions may fall under intellectual property, platforms typically exercise control over monetization, leaving creators with limited ownership beyond mere participation in the digital ecosystem. Similarly, the tools individuals use for cloud-based work remain subject to the terms and conditions imposed by platform providers, reinforcing a dependency that limits personal control over one’s digital labor and its products (Fairfield, 2017). In this present environment, the balance of power remains firmly in the hands of the platforms.
The overwhelming influence of tech giants makes meaningful change challenging. To ensure individuals retain ownership and control over their personal data, digital identities, and the means of production they use in cloud-based environments, a reevaluation of current digital practices and legal frameworks is essential. Despite the theoretical appeal of digital property-in-person, the centralized nature of cloud services and the power of tech monopolies have stifled significant collective action, leaving individuals with limited real control.
An interesting perspective comes from my friend Zoe Magnes, who recently suggested a potential solution that could help address the power imbalance in the digital economy. Magnes advocates for a marketplace where individuals can grant specific corporations access to any form of data by or about them in exchange for royalties. Magnes challenges the binary framing of digital privacy—either a complete lack of control or total disengagement from digital platforms. Instead, she advocates for a marketspace where individuals could control the monetization of their data, similar to the fees that mall walkers sometimes receive for agreeing to participate in a marketing focus group. Magnes also raises the potential for a Cloud-wide union of digital persons as a means to level the field of play through collective bargaining against the power of platform monopolists. Magnes proposes a system where individuals, empowered by both personal agency and collective action, reclaim ownership of their data as an economic asset, challenging the monopolistic control of digital platforms.
The legal battles between tech giants over the right to extract rents in the form of royalties, such as Tim Sweeney’s fight with Apple, are emblematic of a broader struggle within the digital economy.
These conflicts are told to us as struggles for protecting individual digital rights but are often really little more than battles between Cloud Barons over ownership of the digital commons. The Sweeney/Epic lawsuit against Apple brings to light crucial issues regarding the control and power exercised by tech giants over digital ecosystems. Epic’s argument centered on Apple’s 30% commission on in-app purchases, a fee that developers are compelled to pay when using Apple’s payment processing system. Epic contended that this practice not only placed developers in unfavorable economic conditions but also stifled innovation and competition within the app ecosystem.
The significance of this lawsuit extends beyond the immediate conflict, as it underscores the broader debate concerning the power of tech giants to dominate the Cloud commins (digital ecosystems). Apple’s dominance over the iOS platform, which includes strict control over app distribution and payment processing, effectively constitutes a form of monopoly. This dominance stifles competition, limits consumer choice, and precludes the emergence of alternative app stores or payment systems. Critics argue that such monopolistic practices harm consumers by inflating prices and restricting the diversity of available digital products and services.
The Sweeney-Apple conflict is a microcosm of the larger struggles within the digital economy, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few dominant platforms. While this case has sparked discussions about the necessity of regulatory interventions, it also highlights the deep-seated challenges of dismantling entrenched monopolistic structures. Even if Epic were to succeed, the victory might only scratch the surface of the systemic power dynamics that sustain these monopolies.
This dispute must also be understood within the framework of “technofeudalism,” as articulated by Yanis Varoufakis. In this context, digital platforms operate as modern-day feudal lords, controlling the ecosystems in which economic transactions occur and extracting rents from all activities within these digital domains. The Sweeney-Apple conflict can be seen as a challenge to this new form of digital enclosure, where platform monopolists consolidate economic power by controlling the infrastructure that underpins the digital economy. This modern Enclosure movement mirrors historical processes, where a few powerful entities concentrated control, whether over land or digital infrastructure.
However, despite the significance of this legal challenge, it remains unclear whether it can effect meaningful change in the digital economy’s deeply entrenched power dynamics. The outcome of the Sweeney-Apple conflict, while potentially impactful, may only highlight the broader and more systemic issues at play, including the ongoing struggle for digital sovereignty and the rights of individuals to control their digital labor, data, and online presence against the overwhelming power of platform monopolies.
Concluding Thoughts
The integration of AI into video games exemplifies a significant disruption in the business model and design process of interactive storytelling, similar to the broader disruptions seen across the digital economy. AI’s potential to revolutionize video game narratives and interactions opens new possibilities for immersive experiences, but it also raises critical questions about the future of creative labor. Just as the concept of digital property-in-person challenges the current exploitation of personal data and digital labor, the ongoing debates around AI, intellectual property, and ownership highlight the complexities of navigating a digital landscape dominated by platform monopolies.
In practice, the idea of digital property-in-person may struggle to gain traction, given the significant control platforms retain over user data and content. Platforms maintain the illusion of ownership while continuing to monetize and exploit user-generated data and content without meaningful user consent or control. The Sweeney-Apple conflict, AI in video games, and the concept of digital property-in-person collectively underscore the urgent need to reassess digital practices and legal frameworks to protect individual rights in an increasingly monopolized digital world.
References
Beller, J. (2016). Informatic labor in the age of computational capital. Laterality, 5(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.25158/L5.1.4
Fairfield, J. A. T. (2017). Owned: Property, Privacy, and the New Digital Serfdom. Cambridge University Press.
Murdock, G. (2015). Digital Domesday: Saturation surveillance and the new serfdom. MEDIANZ: Media Studies Journal of Aotearoa New Zealand, 14(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.11157/MEDIANZ-VOL14ISS2ID120
SAG-AFTRA. (2024). Video game strike. Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. https://www.sagaftra.org/videogamestrike
Stephenson, N. (2024). Graphomane. https://nealstephenson.substack.com
Varoufakis, Y. (2021). Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present. The Bodley Head.
Varoufakis, Y. (2023). Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism.