alt Hacker NewsI'm not sure what from my comment suggested pausing technological progress, unless you assume technical progress can only be achieved by exploiting workers. While that is happening, I don't think this it is a requirement.
What we see happening in the workforce with AI isn't reducing labor. We see firms making fewer workers do more work and laying off the rest, as in this case, where workers are talking about "hardly sleeping". Similarly, in my org, workers aren't expected to do any less work since adopting AI tools. This case suggests quality is down as well, but maybe that's subjective.
Replies
I mean, we're watching the world try to figure out how to use a new set of tools. As with so many disruptive technologies, the initial stages of development appear to be drop in quality and inferior to the status quo. That usually reverses within five to ten years.
That said, I agree with you that AI is not going to lead to people doing less work, in the same way that computers didn't lead to people doing less work.
I don't see any evidence of worker exploitation being caused in any even semi-direct way by AI integration. In the field of animation and VFX in particular, while I've never worked in that area myself, essentially everyone I've heard talk about it over decades has mentioned unbearable crunch being routine.
You mentioned earlier that AI makes labor weaker, but I really don't see a case for it. If anything, given how relatively cheap GenAI is, it should allow most anyone with artistic sensibilities and skill in the area who is willing to leverage it to go into business themselves with minimal capital. Why should GenAI give power to employers, especially if they're just paying another company for the AI models?