I wouldn’t say “every time new technology appears” since portrait painters definitely got replaced by photography as a widespread industry and a structural shift did happen. Technology in general tries to reduce human effort because human effort is expensive. Any expense that can be shaved down year after year to make more profits will be made regardless of if the quality is consistent. AI doesn’t need to be as good as creatives to replace them (either in part or in whole) eventually. It just needs to be “good enough”. And the thing about technology is that it’s always trying to get to a point to replace people whether it’s there yet or not. Photography couldn’t replace portrait painters initially due to color and image quality, but it eventually got there.
Of course, the long-term goal of automation is to reduce labor, but current AI is nowhere near replacing human workers. Right now, it’s just a tool that speeds up certain tasks with, as the article notes, very mixed results. That said, we’ve seen steady increase in automation since the Industrial Revolution without mass unemployment. Instead of work disappearing, it is merely transformed. Portrait painters fade out, camera operators emerge. The jobs shift, but the need for human labor persists, just in new forms.
I can agree with that general viewpoint even though (I assume) portrait painters got paid more relatively since they work more hours than photographers. I don’t even think I blame AI on the fact the post production was all cut, but instead blame it on the “hype” surrounding it. My industry at large is still operating at 40% of typical since covid which is unrelated to AI, but jobs getting cut for the explicit purpose of trying AI still stings. 1/3 of post was laid off prior to covid because workers in South America were much cheaper. AI is just the new excuse for an existing problem.
So anyway, I’m planning to become an electrician now.
I wouldn’t say “every time new technology appears” since portrait painters definitely got replaced by photography as a widespread industry and a structural shift did happen. Technology in general tries to reduce human effort because human effort is expensive. Any expense that can be shaved down year after year to make more profits will be made regardless of if the quality is consistent. AI doesn’t need to be as good as creatives to replace them (either in part or in whole) eventually. It just needs to be “good enough”. And the thing about technology is that it’s always trying to get to a point to replace people whether it’s there yet or not. Photography couldn’t replace portrait painters initially due to color and image quality, but it eventually got there.
Of course, the long-term goal of automation is to reduce labor, but current AI is nowhere near replacing human workers. Right now, it’s just a tool that speeds up certain tasks with, as the article notes, very mixed results. That said, we’ve seen steady increase in automation since the Industrial Revolution without mass unemployment. Instead of work disappearing, it is merely transformed. Portrait painters fade out, camera operators emerge. The jobs shift, but the need for human labor persists, just in new forms.
I can agree with that general viewpoint even though (I assume) portrait painters got paid more relatively since they work more hours than photographers. I don’t even think I blame AI on the fact the post production was all cut, but instead blame it on the “hype” surrounding it. My industry at large is still operating at 40% of typical since covid which is unrelated to AI, but jobs getting cut for the explicit purpose of trying AI still stings. 1/3 of post was laid off prior to covid because workers in South America were much cheaper. AI is just the new excuse for an existing problem.
So anyway, I’m planning to become an electrician now.
Oh yeah, I completely agree that AI is a convenient excuse to do layoffs companies were doing anyways.