Hacker News Reader

Comment by _2d30 | Hacker News Reader

GenAI will just mean fewer VFX workers but should also mean better wages for them.

Not necessarily, less leverage, more profit goes to capital rather than labor.

Why is there less leverage?

Less jobs, mean same number of people fighting for same positions. It's hard to have leverage when people will do your job for less.

Fewer spots means more musical-chairs style competition and undercutting.

The existing pool of VFX artists wont just dissapear immediately, they'd still like to work in the fewer available jobs post-AI

The real reason is that VFX is not a major cost driver/bottleneck for movie production. If you make VFX cheaper but acting still takes up the same amount of time, you can't expect that more movies or series will be released to absorb the VFX staff. The real economy has a leontief production function.

If you think Generative AI is at the level of current VFX artists, you understand neither the tech or those people’s jobs.

> If you think Generative AI is at the level of current VFX artists, you understand neither the tech or those people’s jobs.

“GenAI will just mean fewer VFX workers but should also mean better wages for them” doesn’t mean “Generative AI is at the level of current VFX artists”, all it means that a VFX artist with Generative AI can be more productive than one without. (Well, and also that they have the negotiating power to capture some of the value of the productivity increase, which is probably the most questionable bit of the whole thing.)

Why would you assume better wages?

You're not operating under the delusion that increase productivity automatically means higher salary, are you?

It used to until about 1965. Then mysteriously labor’s real wages went flat and ever since all productivity gains have been captured by the managerial class and their principals.

You’re not operating under the delusion that your reading comprehension is such that you were able to understand what I wrote, are you? (Do you see the unnecessary condescension in your writing? Worse still when you didn’t parse the sentence properly.)

The operative word “should” shows very clearly that I haven’t assumed better wages. I expect better wages, but neither assume it nor guarantee it.

I did however state that I expect fewer workers in the space. This isn’t entirely clear either but I will go on the record to state that I expect it. It’s possible that the GenAI tools will enable such productivity increases that we see a surge in induced demand and a massive influx of content. My expectation is that this won’t happen as I believe we are likely close to a saturation point in content and expect then that the productivity increases will drown out any induced demand yielding fewer workers.

> I expect better wages

Why?

Here’s how you should write that: “Why would they get better wages? Increased productivity doesn’t automatically mean higher salary.”

Keep your writing clear.

Way lower as it lowers the skill floor to rock bottom.

Or just simply less VFX in movies in general

Marvel is a showoff, but besides that, VFX are everywhere, and not just for flashy magic.

Practical effects, large sets, location shots, live animals, large crowds, etc... are really expensive and/or hard to work with. That's why VFX are used, and done well, you don't even notice and it makes for a better movie for the budget.

That’s a positive outcome.

I guess that would be true if you considered GenAI to not be VFX?

Wouldn't that be wonderful

Reply on news.ycombinator.com