> How many humans do you want employed as butter churners? This gets said about every wave of technological driven job loss and it ignores that it is quite dif

> How many humans do you want employed as butter churners? This gets said about every wave of technological driven job loss and it ignores that it is quite difficult for people to change careers in their mid life. Laid off auto workers in the 80s and 90s didn't switch to other manufacturing jobs or "learn to code". They fell down the ladder into service work and became destitute. And the difference with LLMs is that they threaten essentially every human not working in manual labour with the same fate. > I imagine that the new AI-enabled jobs are going to have so much more autonomy and that we'll see a switch from capital intensive businesses employing lots of people (eg. Hollywood studios) to lots of tiny indie houses with fewer than a dozen folks, building exactly what they want with freedom. I'm sorry but I can't reconcile this with my view of what is actually going on. The entire point of LLMs being introduced in the film industry is to remove humans from the equation to increase profit margins and avoid having to pay actor/writer residuals. That is where all of the investment money is going, not some utopia where the investment money is being split between AI studios churning out "content" and some small human, indie studios making "art". Also, one of the ways the indie film scene has survived is as a proving ground for up and coming actors/actresses (it being part of the career ladder for the acting profession provides a supply of actors/actresses despite low pay) who can then go on to more mainstream films and make their living. If we cede the mainstream to AI then that career progression breaks down and indie films become wholly personal passion projects by folks with enough money to have an extremely expensive hobby.