I freelance in Film & TV Production and have a lot of union TV writer friends. What they have been telling me is exactly what you are talking about in this piece. AI can’t really write good scripts, but the studios can use it as an excuse to pay them less.
For example, they will claim that AI wrote the script and that the writers are just punching up what the AI wrote. This way they are only paying for an “editor” not a creator. Furthermore, most TV shows have 6-8 writers that are hired to handle the work load of writing 10-20 episode series. With AI, studios can “claim” they need very few writers because AI can generate the bulk of the content. As usual, the threat to workers isn’t the technology, it’s the greed of humans.
Anyone with a full wit knows that American movies and television rarely require good scripts. If and when AI produces garbage of equal quality to that of humans, consumers will be none the worse, and possibly pay less for the swill they enjoy.
The accusation of "greed" always supplies half of the story (TV cliche-style). Yes, there are people who want to pay less, but there are also people who want to earn more, and it is the second group about which you are carping.
Millions of Americans buy books whose ostensible author is "James Patterson," but which are actually the product of a word factory. Alas, "James Patterson" might now survive in perpetuity as AI. What a terrible loss to wordsmithing, but readers will be none the wiser. The porn industry is likely to vaporize in the face of just-as-good counterfeit actors.
With luck AI will not only subvert the crap art industry but also housing. Combined with other new technologies, such as 3D construction, houses might rapidly become affordable. With luck the greedy construction industry will rid us of the tyranny of the zoning lords and politically connected builders. Power to the people!
There is also a massive contradiction in what we are being told, namely, AI will take all of our Jobs and massively increase productivity. At the time, we all need to work longer as the pension system is unsustainable. One of those propositions is not true.
A little off topic but I’ve been struggling with the concept of AI replacing most of the work force. Who does capital think is going to buy product if no one has jobs? Do they think it will just be intra-corporation transactions? If they are relying on a universal wage then why bother automating as they will need to fund wages anyway? Do they think it’s government’s job to fund the universal wage and they are divorced from the funding implications? Is consumption going to be a thing of the past? I really don’t understand the long term view. Feeding more and more dividends to shareholders by cutting production costs via redundancy is all well and good until nobody can buy your goods.
It’s a similar thing with this traditional family thing, why would capital be happy with half the population exiting the workforce and relying on a single wage. It’d be a massive constriction on buying power and a huge economic brake. ( aside from the repression of half the population) It seems that we are doing things with the planning rationale of “ it seemed like a good idea at the time”
I know I’m naive in economic theory but the logic is killing me.
Yes this is areal contradiction identified by Marx. Capital as a whole has an interest in workers having wages to buy stuff, but no individual capitalist has an incentive to be the one paying those wages. Each firm wants to cut its own labour costs while hoping everyone else's workers keep consuming. It's a collective action problem.
Historically, these collective action problems are 'solved' by the state through interventions like welfare and public services. But a problem with the social democratic consensus emerged pretty quickly - workers weren't sufficiently scared of losing their jobs, which made it easier for them to organise, and threatened the power of capital. Neoliberalism was a response to this crisis of ungovernability (see my book Vulture Capitalism).
Now we have this stalemate where growth and productivity are stagnant, but the state can't do anything about it for fear of upsetting the balance of power between workers and bosses.
Now I think about it, maybe I should make this into my next article!!
“Now we have this stalemate where growth and productivity are stagnant, but the state can't do anything about it for fear of upsetting the balance of power between workers and bosses.” This statement was in this thread.
I’ve been swatting up on economic theory for this very reason. What happens when the masses are too poor to consume??? I can see that the push for subscription everything would effectively create rentier income for everything a human needs to survive but if we are all having to survive on the bare minimum then what? Even if they facilitate the death of most of us that problem of no one left to consume will remain.
I'm not sure if AI automating jobs being true matters at all. If business leaders/owners think it is true because that's what they've been told when they license AI services then they will act like it's true and let people go. Same effect either way.
You can see how this works in practice. The power isn’t just in what AI can do, it’s in what employers say it can do. Once workers are told their jobs are about to be automated, it weakens their position whether the tech actually delivers or not. From what I’ve seen, the reality on the ground often lags a long way behind the narrative. but the narrative still does the job for management.
It's always the same old story: exploitation and class struggle, the essence doesn't change even if technology advances... and there are still those who say Marx is dead...
Pay has increased, all boats have risen in recent decades. Fewer than 5 percent of private industry workers are union members, and the idea of unionization is becoming even less popular among the few.
Technology disemploys some people, and then creates many new and better jobs. The know-nothings are always wrong. There aren't many farmers because technology has made farming more efficient and safer. (It's still one of the least safe jobs.) Most coal mining jobs have been lost. By every measure Americans who are not wholly irresponsible are better off than their grandparents, and even their parents. Only government workers, paid with conscripted dollars, are heavily unionized: their votes and money are delivered to sympathetic politicians.
Tech advances improve productivity, which is the main way workers increase their incomes, and without necessarily developing more skills or utility. The extent to which AI accomplishes productivity gains remains to be seen, but the critics of technology have never been right over the long haul. AI is likely to lead to a materially better future in which anti-capitalists lament that it is unfair that some people are millionaires while others are billionaires. Even relatively socialist Mexico is setting itself up to be a data center hub, which might finally let many Mexicans escape the harshness and boredom of their poverty. It might finally lead to a better life for the kids who sell marzipan on the streets into the night.
Grace is a thinker behind British working class! Solidarity with workers ,fighting for their dignity and rights can help us get closer to the social ideal of genuine humanism.
I freelance in Film & TV Production and have a lot of union TV writer friends. What they have been telling me is exactly what you are talking about in this piece. AI can’t really write good scripts, but the studios can use it as an excuse to pay them less.
For example, they will claim that AI wrote the script and that the writers are just punching up what the AI wrote. This way they are only paying for an “editor” not a creator. Furthermore, most TV shows have 6-8 writers that are hired to handle the work load of writing 10-20 episode series. With AI, studios can “claim” they need very few writers because AI can generate the bulk of the content. As usual, the threat to workers isn’t the technology, it’s the greed of humans.
So true. Just saw this video on Insta and it couldn't be more accurate! https://www.instagram.com/p/DXpKmohDvtM
Anyone with a full wit knows that American movies and television rarely require good scripts. If and when AI produces garbage of equal quality to that of humans, consumers will be none the worse, and possibly pay less for the swill they enjoy.
The accusation of "greed" always supplies half of the story (TV cliche-style). Yes, there are people who want to pay less, but there are also people who want to earn more, and it is the second group about which you are carping.
Millions of Americans buy books whose ostensible author is "James Patterson," but which are actually the product of a word factory. Alas, "James Patterson" might now survive in perpetuity as AI. What a terrible loss to wordsmithing, but readers will be none the wiser. The porn industry is likely to vaporize in the face of just-as-good counterfeit actors.
With luck AI will not only subvert the crap art industry but also housing. Combined with other new technologies, such as 3D construction, houses might rapidly become affordable. With luck the greedy construction industry will rid us of the tyranny of the zoning lords and politically connected builders. Power to the people!
There is also a massive contradiction in what we are being told, namely, AI will take all of our Jobs and massively increase productivity. At the time, we all need to work longer as the pension system is unsustainable. One of those propositions is not true.
Great point
A little off topic but I’ve been struggling with the concept of AI replacing most of the work force. Who does capital think is going to buy product if no one has jobs? Do they think it will just be intra-corporation transactions? If they are relying on a universal wage then why bother automating as they will need to fund wages anyway? Do they think it’s government’s job to fund the universal wage and they are divorced from the funding implications? Is consumption going to be a thing of the past? I really don’t understand the long term view. Feeding more and more dividends to shareholders by cutting production costs via redundancy is all well and good until nobody can buy your goods.
It’s a similar thing with this traditional family thing, why would capital be happy with half the population exiting the workforce and relying on a single wage. It’d be a massive constriction on buying power and a huge economic brake. ( aside from the repression of half the population) It seems that we are doing things with the planning rationale of “ it seemed like a good idea at the time”
I know I’m naive in economic theory but the logic is killing me.
Yes this is areal contradiction identified by Marx. Capital as a whole has an interest in workers having wages to buy stuff, but no individual capitalist has an incentive to be the one paying those wages. Each firm wants to cut its own labour costs while hoping everyone else's workers keep consuming. It's a collective action problem.
Historically, these collective action problems are 'solved' by the state through interventions like welfare and public services. But a problem with the social democratic consensus emerged pretty quickly - workers weren't sufficiently scared of losing their jobs, which made it easier for them to organise, and threatened the power of capital. Neoliberalism was a response to this crisis of ungovernability (see my book Vulture Capitalism).
Now we have this stalemate where growth and productivity are stagnant, but the state can't do anything about it for fear of upsetting the balance of power between workers and bosses.
Now I think about it, maybe I should make this into my next article!!
That’d be great Grace, I appreciate your insights.
“Now we have this stalemate where growth and productivity are stagnant, but the state can't do anything about it for fear of upsetting the balance of power between workers and bosses.” This statement was in this thread.
Please do!
I’ve been swatting up on economic theory for this very reason. What happens when the masses are too poor to consume??? I can see that the push for subscription everything would effectively create rentier income for everything a human needs to survive but if we are all having to survive on the bare minimum then what? Even if they facilitate the death of most of us that problem of no one left to consume will remain.
I'm not sure if AI automating jobs being true matters at all. If business leaders/owners think it is true because that's what they've been told when they license AI services then they will act like it's true and let people go. Same effect either way.
You can see how this works in practice. The power isn’t just in what AI can do, it’s in what employers say it can do. Once workers are told their jobs are about to be automated, it weakens their position whether the tech actually delivers or not. From what I’ve seen, the reality on the ground often lags a long way behind the narrative. but the narrative still does the job for management.
Yup
It's always the same old story: exploitation and class struggle, the essence doesn't change even if technology advances... and there are still those who say Marx is dead...
The title is exactly right and exactly incomplete.
Your boss is using AI as the mechanism. But the decision was made in the boardroom before the first pilot launched. The tool is cover, not cause.
What UTAW is doing matters. But the workers who get there first are the ones who saw the pattern before the announcement came.
Vital, if disheartening, information. Thank you.
Pay has increased, all boats have risen in recent decades. Fewer than 5 percent of private industry workers are union members, and the idea of unionization is becoming even less popular among the few.
Technology disemploys some people, and then creates many new and better jobs. The know-nothings are always wrong. There aren't many farmers because technology has made farming more efficient and safer. (It's still one of the least safe jobs.) Most coal mining jobs have been lost. By every measure Americans who are not wholly irresponsible are better off than their grandparents, and even their parents. Only government workers, paid with conscripted dollars, are heavily unionized: their votes and money are delivered to sympathetic politicians.
Tech advances improve productivity, which is the main way workers increase their incomes, and without necessarily developing more skills or utility. The extent to which AI accomplishes productivity gains remains to be seen, but the critics of technology have never been right over the long haul. AI is likely to lead to a materially better future in which anti-capitalists lament that it is unfair that some people are millionaires while others are billionaires. Even relatively socialist Mexico is setting itself up to be a data center hub, which might finally let many Mexicans escape the harshness and boredom of their poverty. It might finally lead to a better life for the kids who sell marzipan on the streets into the night.
https://reason.com/2026/05/01/workers-voted-on-decertifying-unions-1600-times-in-the-past-decade-teamsters-are-the-most-common-target/
Grace is a thinker behind British working class! Solidarity with workers ,fighting for their dignity and rights can help us get closer to the social ideal of genuine humanism.
There should be an affirmative action on AI licences. For every license bought, you need to employ a human in some capacity! Something like that!
An interesting perspective on the issues concerning AI. Different cause but a similar "solution". Just another excuse. Thanks
Fictitious game for them, an endless carousel. For us, more pain, suffering and fuel for hatred. Wonder if we’ll ever move on?
🤴🤴🤴😡
Also - the potential recession caused by insane levels of lending **to AI companies** is also coming for the jobs that will be replaced by AI.