:shrug:
Look, I'm an okay computer programmer. I see my dad lose at Bridge to the computer frequently, but I understand that it has nothing to do with the computer being better at it than him. It has everything to do with the fact that even his supposed ally in Bridge underbids or overbids basically acting like an opponent. Unlike human opponents, they don't act in their own self interest (e.g. the partner doesn't partner, and the other players don't try to win at their own hand), they all band together against him.
There's a game called Foxes and Snakes (from the Wheel of Time). You have a series of concentric circles crossed by lines and spires (wavy lines). Basically, the foxes and the snakes outnumber the humans and are thus able to trap them 9 times out of 10. To the point where the game is "impossible to win without cheating." Only it's not. You see the foxes can only move on one line pattern, while snakes can only move on the other. That's all the main lines. Humans can move on both line types plus cross them using the concentric circles, allowing them to slip between pieces. In other words, you can get alot farther by not moving like a snake or fox but keeping them guessing (unfortunately, you still will likely lose, but that's because they roll about seven times per one of yours). Likewise, my dad can win if knowing what he knows about Bridge, he basically forces the computer to work against its own programming. What is called finding an exploit.
Chess players lose because they try to compete against a computer on its own terms. When I used Google Translate, I knew that it could translate the entire book that I was working on in six minutes where it would take months. But quality is terrible. They leave out words or entire paragraphs. They translate in a way that isn't grammatically correct, or uses words literally when there are figures of speech in play. In translation, the work that takes months is nonetheless a perfect translation even if it contains typos, because it is written with important nuances in mind (double entendres, puns, a sense of emotion, etc). The computer strings words together but there is no sense of intent. So yes, you are a hack writer if you lose to a computer in anything but the amount of time it takes (the six seconds thing). It means that your choice of words is predictable, you don't use any nuances or interesting ideas, you're just going through the motions.
But more importantly, a human is able to use the AI as a tool, and then adjust what is written. They are able to think like a human, occasionally exploiting the machine to do the hard work and then instead editing. If you can't make the AI work for you, you suck. You're competing against it, instead of using it to help you win. So basically, they are striking because the producer just crunches together a plot with AI, and they are trying to hand-write a tired plot. No. You get the computer to type the pages, then edit stuff. Or you hand-write a plot so weird that no AI would do it, and you do it at your own pace.