I heard a radio spot recently and I wondered if the voice was a real person or AI. It makes we wonder how such industries are dealing with this gen-AI revolution. We spend a lot of time here thinking about how it affects software developers, but I hardly ever see any commentary on how it is affecting screen and voice actors.
newyankee · 2026-08-27 18:41:51 UTC
Everyone will probably go through the 5 stages of grief w.r.t AI adoption in their field and the gatekeepers will (rightfully) hold onto hallucination and errors as reasons to delay incorporation or to incorporate it with more human handholding.
lambda · 2026-08-27 18:42:10 UTC
Many screen and voice actors are unionized, and the unions have been striking and bargaining specifcially over these points.
Software developers, unfortunately, have been convinced that they don't need to unionize, so have no collective bargaining power for dealing with situations like this.
r_lee · 2026-08-27 18:46:40 UTC
it's hilarious to see some people here go on about how they're proud to work so that they can be replaced
I think too many just expect that they can get by like before because they're a 10x engineer or whatever
quaintdev · 2026-08-27 18:54:23 UTC
It won't happen to me is what I used to think
georgemcbay · 2026-08-27 19:56:39 UTC
> It won't happen to me is what I used to think
In my experience this is what almost everyone thinks, right up to the point where it starts happening to them.
And it isn't just an individual blind spot, organizations suffer from the same thing in the sense that many companies will be happy to automate away all their labor to avoid paying the "human tax" without giving much thought to the fact that the need for the company itself will also be automated away soon after.
If you can replace nearly all of your workers with some cheap tokens and prompts, everyone else who previously would have been a customer can replace your whole company with the same thing.
Melatonic · 2026-08-28 08:28:50 UTC
Exactly. Or a competitor comes in and does what you do for half the cost and double the efficiency.
embedding-shape · 2026-08-27 18:55:15 UTC
> it's hilarious to see some people here go on about how they're proud to work so that they can be replaced
To be fair, most of us spent our entire career trying our best to automate ourselves away one way or another, and always seen that as our job description.
12ags-18276 · 2026-08-27 19:08:32 UTC
No, that is just nerd heroism lore that indeed has always shown up in comments, that part is definitely true.
Some people dislike automation altogether and like the computational aspect. Most people seem to enjoy constructing virtual worlds and Rube Goldberg machines.
genericone · 2026-08-27 20:34:20 UTC
I thought HN was mostly people who hated doing 'the thing' and would procrastinate until they build a system that does 'the thing' and then they would work tirelessly to never do 'the thing' themselves ever again.
embedding-shape · 2026-08-28 09:26:07 UTC
> Some people dislike automation altogether and like the computational aspect
Computation IS automation
12ags-18276 · 2026-08-27 19:04:55 UTC
Many people who promoted DEI when their corporations demanded it were fired later.
Useful idiots always go first after the goal is accomplished.
zamadatix · 2026-08-27 19:11:56 UTC
I think I sit somewhere between these two descriptions. I've always supported unions and other "for the common good" type machinery. At the same time, I desperately also don't want to end up doing something the equivalent of barring the use of calculators just so I can toil away at a 9-5 crunching numbers more slowly instead. If AI really does replace all of the meaningful jobs we can do... great - I'd rather we make sure the spoils of that production are distributed than try to cling to preventing the technology from being used.
Inexplicably for the current moment, AI has so far actually meant I have even more to do instead of less. I expect that to change eventually... but man, is it a bit of whiplash to go from wondering if my job will be around in 10 years to starting the work day and being more backed up than ever. Doubly so since the rate of change does not seem to be very evenly distributed by tech role.
oblio · 2026-08-27 20:34:59 UTC
> I'd rather we make sure the spoils of that production are distributed than try to cling to preventing the technology from being used.
Spoiler alert: unions can help with that.
zamadatix · 2026-08-27 21:38:28 UTC
Agreed, but I must've severely messed up my message if that was supposed to be a spoiler. To be clearer: I think the unions, economic policy, and such should help with that part rather than us wield the very same to hide from replacing the work we do with something much easier. I.e., don't be ashamed to work towards that, just come together to ensure we all share the spoils.
BeetleB · 2026-08-27 19:48:34 UTC
Much of computing history has been about replacing humans. If they were proud of their work pre-LLMs, then at least they're being consistent!
It's kind of hypocritical to change just because it's now a different industry being impacted.
qwytw · 2026-08-27 20:29:04 UTC
What options do you have? If you're the 10x engineer you'll be a 100x one and do just fine. Otherwise what can you do besides holding on as long as you can or start searching for a new career.
GeorgeWBasic · 2026-08-27 22:35:33 UTC
I agree with your point, but I don't think it's funny at all. The whole field is changing because of this. The career, except for those ones lucky enough to have jobs where they're valued and they can decide how to use AI tools, is turning into shit because of this and software engineers have become a lot less valuable as management is trying to turn them into reverse centaurs.
catigula · 2026-08-27 18:49:58 UTC
Half of them are from India or China. Racial diversity is known to be detrimental to unionization. In fact, Amazon used this exact strategy to bust nascent Somali unions.
Now, they cannot prevent offshoring or AI use or replacements. Very very rarely if ever.
But they can negotiate a large layoff and give better pay/conditions during work etc. This view that unions can prevent anything... when so many jobs have gone to east EU (all amazing and good at what they do but lets face it, it is due to pay) so yea there wont be any union preventing AI...
arjie · 2026-08-27 19:23:55 UTC
Personally, I just can’t find it in me to be that self-interested. It’s how other people oppose buildings near them because it blocks their view. I really don’t want to stop other people from writing software. If they want to use AI to do it so be it.
That’ll be somewhat detrimental to me perhaps (which isn’t certain), but that’s okay. I’d rather attempt to adapt to a changing world.
koe123 · 2026-08-27 19:32:05 UTC
Thats great, although understand that unionizing protects the more vulnerable of also the software engineered. You not advocating for your rights also means weakening others. Is it still self interested to unionized from that perspective?
smallerize · 2026-08-27 19:44:44 UTC
You may be surprised to know that residential areas in San Francisco are height limited, sometimes as short as 4 stories. They're not exactly anti-progress.
BeetleB · 2026-08-27 19:47:18 UTC
Height limiting is anti-progress, which was his point.
smallerize · 2026-08-27 19:55:42 UTC
Ok SF needs somewhat higher-density housing. But wanting something good for yourself and your peers isn't anti-progress. If the benefits accrue to only a few people, it's not progress.
BeetleB · 2026-08-27 20:07:49 UTC
> But wanting something good for yourself and your peers isn't anti-progress.
It is if it makes it worse for everyone else.
lambda · 2026-08-27 19:48:45 UTC
I don't know that unions would necessarily negotiate for no use of AI. The SAG-AFRA deals don't preclude all use of AI; they just requre consent and negotiation in certain cases.
A union doesn't give you unilateral power; it just gives you a better seat at the bargaining table. Capital pools its resources to negotiate better as a single bloc; why shouldn't labor as well?
nurettin · 2026-08-28 05:13:36 UTC
I don't have a voice or likeness in my code. Sure, I have a very specific style in all the code I wrote for the past couple of decades, but you can achieve the same outputs with completely orthogonal styles as well. (like AoS vs SoA) so what would I even negotiate for when everything I ever thought of got distilled into neural network weights to be high-pressure sprayed to the masses?
bayindirh · 2026-08-28 08:33:05 UTC
> so what would I even negotiate for when everything I ever thought of got distilled into neural network weights to be high-pressure sprayed to the masses?
For your unique approach to the problems at hand. Yes, 90% of the code written is CRUD, but when it's not, how it's solved matters.
This is why we have grown with id Software games. They solved the problems, created new paths and methods for limited hardware for their time.
This is why we praised DivX and XviD back in the day. They solved problems again which are caused by the limits of the computers.
The way one solves problems matter, makes one valuable. This is why we do research and create new ways to do things.
In short, your creativity is being sold/sprayed to masses.
Melatonic · 2026-08-28 08:00:41 UTC
The giant strikes were hugely based on AI issues
bayindirh · 2026-08-28 08:29:53 UTC
Yes, and these prevented actors being copied in 3D, in all their likeness and cast for any and every movie they fit practically for free.
iAMkenough · 2026-08-27 20:29:45 UTC
> Personally, I just can’t find it in me to be that self-interested.
Yes, exactly. Do not advocate for yourself and your colleagues by joining them in a united front. Your voice does not matter. You will continue to adapt to widening wage disparities.
You will accept a pay cut and increased productivity goals and be happy to continue adapting as your cost of living keeps on climbing.
brendoelfrendo · 2026-08-27 21:43:20 UTC
This is the first time I've heard someone argue that unionizing is a self-interested pursuit. It's called "collective bargaining" for a reason; workers who cooperate in negotiations with their employers have more leverage than those who negotiate individually. The entire point is to work together for the betterment of the group!
jackdoe · 2026-08-27 21:47:52 UTC
their point is while the 'group' wins, the rest of the world loses.
localized gains, distributed loss.
computerliker · 2026-08-27 22:05:26 UTC
as an art enjoyer, i do not feel that having less media written, drawn, or voiced by a computer is a loss.
a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste. it can only make product. i also think artists should be paid living wages with good working conditions.
thank you SAG-AFTRA, WGA, IATSE, AEMI and Teamsters.
drdaeman · 2026-08-28 06:27:25 UTC
> a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste
So far ;-)
miki123211 · 2026-08-28 08:31:30 UTC
> a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste
Neither can a record player. Nevertheless, we consume recorded music.
Timon3 · 2026-08-28 10:26:56 UTC
Surely you must be aware that record players don't compose the music they are playing?
binary132 · 2026-08-28 01:46:27 UTC
There is no moral imperative to help the world reach an optimum. Rather, the world is full of competing interests.
sib · 2026-08-27 21:58:51 UTC
See current situation where the Carpenters' Union in California is pushing hard against an initiative that would make it much easier to build more housing in the state because it would also reduce requirements for union labor.
Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon (and in many cases, the benefits are specifically to the more senior union members vis a vis the less senior ones.)
magicalist · 2026-08-28 00:14:37 UTC
> See current situation where the Carpenters' Union in California is pushing hard against an initiative that would make it much easier to build more housing in the state because it would also reduce requirements for union labor
If you're talking about AB 1751 (Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act) I think you have this exactly backwards.
> Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon
As opposed to what? You and the GGP phrase this as a dichotomy, but I'm really curious what the other side of this is, because "not being in a union" doesn't erase your self interest or all the many many groups of people doing the same that don't feel like they're apparently being overly self interested by forming corporations, governments, non-profits, advocacy groups, etc, etc, etc
Dayshine · 2026-08-28 07:46:45 UTC
> Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon (and in many cases, the benefits are specifically to the more senior union members vis a vis the less senior
In the US. In the UK all the major unions I know don't require membership and fight for all employees in the industries they represent. E.g. as a software developer on a research project at a University I got all the negotiated benefits of the academic Union.
w3ll_w3ll_w3ll · 2026-08-28 09:19:20 UTC
In Italy too. We have national contracts that are negotiated by unions for the whole indistry and are valid for all workers of the same industry, not only members.
Melatonic · 2026-08-28 08:14:37 UTC
They've also been proven to increase wages for people in the same industry who are not even in the union due to raising the floor in general for what good labor should cost
baron816 · 2026-08-27 22:27:01 UTC
Have you ever not been able to send your kids to school for weeks (or years in the case of COVID) because the teachers refused to work? Have you ever been unable to get timely medical treatment because nurses refused to work? Have you ever been unable to work yourself because the transit workers refused to work?
mattkevan · 2026-08-27 22:42:02 UTC
Maybe if employers offered better working conditions and salaries people wouldn’t feel the need to go on strike?
baron816 · 2026-08-28 00:57:20 UTC
People have this right to take better jobs at other companies. This is how we get better working conditions: competition between employers. Tech has figured this out. I’ve never felt the need to go on strike.
Unions can be a deterrent to this. If you have sectoral bargaining, you can’t get a better deal anywhere because everyone pays the same. Or even if it’s within a single company, you’re just stuck with whatever scheme the union bosses agreed to.
But also, unions are a deterrent to new employers since fewer people want to start companies in industries where unions have taken over. They’re a nightmare to deal with. Fewer employers means less competition means worse services.
We have a dynamic economy with lots of competition. It’s easy to switch jobs and find a better place to work. We should not want to give this up.
tyre · 2026-08-28 05:38:17 UTC
"Competition is universally good" is what has decimated American manufacturing since Reagan. It's hollowed out the US middle class, which affects what the country can build, purchasing power, and innovation. Free trade policies have destroyed cities, eliminated millions of well-paying jobs, cut social services, and ripped the social fabric from communities. There were no alternatives to just "take a job at a better company"; most manufacturing jobs that left had no alternatives.
It was cynically selfish and short-sighted. The US from 1980–2020 is a perfect example of how much more complex systems, economies, worker dynamics, and second/third/nth order effects are.
ezst · 2026-08-28 09:29:58 UTC
Just to add to that "Competition" is no longer even a thing when the unchecked capitalistic game is played to the extent we are at, with extreme consolidation and duo/triopoly cartels running most services and playing all the dirty tricks in the bag (regulatory capture, rent extraction, lobbying for deregulation and weakening of labour and environmental norms, ...)
Competition is generally good for the consumer, but Americans need to wake up to the fact that it's not built into the system, it's to be regulated into it, and competing is only good so far as it doesn't turn into a race to the bottom (which again, is a matter of a regulator setting the bar).
mchusma · 2026-08-28 02:54:24 UTC
You realize his examples are public sector unions. Which mean the “employer” you are referring to is the citizens? Not some evil corporation, government mandated monopolies which then get taken over to serve their union members.
I don’t have any objection to voluntary unions. Meaning people can join them for support or collective bargaining, but that citizens can just opt to not employ anyone in the union. Unions could be support structures for workers, instead they are mafia bosses.
lambdas · 2026-08-27 23:20:01 UTC
Well… yeah. But I didn’t blame the employees, I blamed the employer who must have seen the writing on the wall for a long time and yet let it come to this.
baron816 · 2026-08-28 00:50:16 UTC
Why do you assume unions are always reasonable? Unions in the US have a long history of over reaching and crippling industries and governments.
itishappy · 2026-08-27 23:56:48 UTC
Those self-interested unions better stay away from my interests!
Melatonic · 2026-08-28 08:19:36 UTC
Nurses have very strict legal requirements on when they can strike and for how long. Not unlike railroad workers.
When have you not been able to get timely medical treatment at the fault of nurses ?
csallen · 2026-08-28 00:54:32 UTC
I can't speak for the OP, but I don't think their point was that they're against the self-interested nature of unionizing.
I read it more like they're against trying to stop, hinder, or prevent the use of new technology, simply because it's personally threatening.
And I feel the same way. If I was part of a union, I would believe in the collective bargaining power, but I wouldn't necessarily believe we should use that to pursue every single possible agenda that might benefit us. And I've personally pooled my capital with others in the past in order to achieve certain outcomes. And in those situations I also didn't attempt to reach so far as to limit the totally valid freedoms of others just because I knew it might be better for me.
Acting in the interest of a collective doesn't mean one must also abandon the ethics they usually employ when acting in their solo self interest.
Melatonic · 2026-08-28 08:16:49 UTC
People also forget the role they play in protecting and helping corporations. Without unions as a legal and negotiating intermediary you get things like factory workers burning down the factories when they are overly exploited.
akoboldfrying · 2026-08-28 13:12:00 UTC
Sorry, but I don't think that makes sense. Any mutiny-preventing deal that a union negotiates could instead have been offered voluntarily by the employer to all employees from the outset, no union required.
akoboldfrying · 2026-08-28 12:59:53 UTC
You have described self-interest.
That's not to say unions, or self-interest itself, are bad.
jplusequalt · 2026-08-27 23:01:05 UTC
>Personally, I just can’t find it in me to be that self-interested
Caring about your ability to pay your bills, and support your family is "self-interested" in the same way that choosing to not drive into oncoming traffic is "self-interested".
popalchemist · 2026-08-28 02:52:30 UTC
Has it occurred to you that it isn't only self-interest but concern for others that drives collective bargaining? It's essentialy a way for the little guys to stand up to the 1% to fight against the unending series of abuses and diminishment of the average person's ability to earn a livable wage and work under fair conditions.
timr · 2026-08-28 03:40:15 UTC
Yes. But there's a clear difference between, say, stealing someone's voice, identity or intellectual property, and preventing someone from using automation to do labor.
The former is obviously unfair to the person whose identity is stolen. The latter is sour grapes from people who want to control the future.
I also can't bring myself to get incensed over someone using a robot to write code. It's literally the modern equivalent of smashing knitting looms.
popalchemist · 2026-08-28 05:25:10 UTC
You keep framing it as getting incensed over other people using ai to write code; but that isn't what it's about. A dev union would not attempt that; it would attempt to ensure quality of life for your class of people (and their families) as much as possible. It isn't about policing entire industries or other entities; it is about DEFENDING those who they would, do, and always have exploited when binding contracts or legislation don't prevent them from doing so.
Union = a group of people defending their rights and that includes the right to a life that isn't at the utter mercy of perpetual enshittification due to the infinite mechanical plodding of heartless (by definition) megacorporations that would never hesitate to eradicate peoples' livelihoods and treat humans as material for the orphan grinder if they could get away with it.
And by the way, they do, if you haven't noticed.
timr · 2026-08-28 09:31:27 UTC
> it would attempt to ensure quality of life for your class of people (and their families) as much as possible.
What is “your class of people”, and why is it threatened by what other people do with coding robots?
You can try to dress it up as an intellectual argument, but at root it’s the same thing that the luddites were trying to do: defending your preferred lifestyle from technological advances.
We, the ditch diggers of the world, support your unqualified resistance to the use of steam shovels! Fewer holes, slower!
Melatonic · 2026-08-28 08:23:23 UTC
A software union probably wouldn't tell you what tools to use when writing code. It would help protect you from being completed replaced by code
croon · 2026-08-28 06:49:43 UTC
I'm unsure how you reach the conclusion of "self-interest". Unions are about collective bargaining power, reaching (ideally) what's best for most of the people it represents, even if it's detrimental to you specifically.
LeBit · 2026-08-28 09:59:38 UTC
Try to think about other people a bit.
You are part of a whole. You are not alone.
Saying you don’t mind to adapt is insulting.
boredatoms · 2026-08-27 19:44:16 UTC
No one has offered a union to join at any workplace Ive been at
lambda · 2026-08-27 22:09:46 UTC
Yeah, the problem is, someone has to start the union. It takes work. You have to get the whole workforce to vote on it. A lot of software engineers believe (or believed) that they were too smart and professional to need a union. And of course, if management gets wind of it while you are working on setting up the vote, they may do all kinds of trickery, legal or illegal, to block it.
It is possible. But it's quite uncommon in this industry in the US.
And given the current administration, it is hard to trust you'd get fair enforcement of labor laws if the company did illegal things to block unionization.
vlyan · 2026-08-27 19:57:52 UTC
>The union demanded clear protections to ensure that recordings of actors’ performances could not be copied without consent and compensation.
>California’s legislation passed AB 2602 and AB 1836 in September 2024, prohibiting media companies from using AI to replicate actors’ performances without their consent.
it's a very reasonable law, but it is not the win you seem to believe it to be. the actors who refuse to consent will simply be passed over in favor of those who don't. no law will ever be passed to force companies to employ humans over machines, and if it were, the industry would move elsewhere. this is not without precedent :)
speech models have got so good so quickly that you can already replace a VA -- even an AAA prima donna -- with a teenager from Fiverr, who will simply bruteforce the right inflection.
Melatonic · 2026-08-28 08:25:59 UTC
If they still have to pay an actual person though to license their likeness then they are much more likely to actually employ that person directly to get a better result. And in the cases where quality is not needed the person still gets paid for their AI likeness.
Seems like a reasonable take
isoprophlex · 2026-08-27 20:42:20 UTC
And thus the developers remain, until this very moment, ionized.
worthless-trash · 2026-08-28 05:08:07 UTC
I appreciate.
dzonga · 2026-08-27 21:30:53 UTC
I don't think software developers need to unionize - but to form French style co-ops.
e.g a lot of video game studios even the AAA ones could be co-ops. same as a lot of SAAS software companies. Linear - just announced a tender offer. I don't see a reason - why linear couldn't work as a co-op.
ameliaquining · 2026-08-28 02:24:32 UTC
Are the employees supposed to front the capital themselves?
epolanski · 2026-08-27 21:59:23 UTC
Because software developers enjoyed scarcity for most of the fields existence and could barter themselves better conditions instead of falling back to unionized fixed incomes.
In any case, the overwhelming majority of jobs is non-unionized and I don't think that software developers can stop technological changes by unionizing.
ameliaquining · 2026-08-28 02:25:29 UTC
My objection has always been that advocates either can't or don't care to explain how such a thing would actually work from the perspective of a unionized engineer.
Melatonic · 2026-08-28 08:02:23 UTC
Software engineers and VFX workers also tried to unionise back in the day and there was a giant wage fixing and anti competitive hiring scandal that was majorly illegal. Perpetuated by some of the biggest names in tech.
They settled for a large undisclosed sum out of court. But largely won unfortunately as unionisation efforts failed
miki123211 · 2026-08-28 08:29:22 UTC
In the 21st century, the only professions that can successfully unionize are those you can't replace with workers from a non-unionized country.
If your students are in Oklahoma, your teachers also have to be in Oklahoma. If the Oklahoma teachers unionize, you have no option but to hire those unionized teachers if you want your students taught. If your bank is in Oklahoma, you can hire programmers in London or buy a SaaS from a company based in Geneva.
Programmers also have much less of a reason to unionize, as "quit and go work somewhere else" is often a realistic option. This is usually not the case for teachers, where the only employer seeking their skills in the area is the government, whose idea of what teacher salaries should be is not based on market forces.
earthnail · 2026-08-27 18:42:52 UTC
Work that doesn’t have a personal brand involved is basically dead. Arbitrary voice acting? Dead.
It’s brutal for these people. The creative industry was always hard, but this is just plain brutal.
Melatonic · 2026-08-28 08:32:14 UTC
People pretty consistently vote with their wallet and are not excited to pay and consume media made by AI.
richrichardsson · 2026-08-28 09:19:37 UTC
Unfortunately sometimes you can't even vote with your wallet.
I was bored yesterday and started watching a stupid documentary series about UFOs/UAP on Netflix. It was immediately obvious that the voice over was AI slop bullshit. All I could do is stop watching and thumb down it, but they still have my money. :(
sumedh · 2026-08-28 10:36:03 UTC
Do you have any stats for that?
moscoe · 2026-08-27 19:17:18 UTC
Sounds like a perfect application of AI. Some jobs should be automated.
tiagod · 2026-08-27 20:20:22 UTC
I would rather hear human voices than synthesized ones. I don't care how realistic they sound. I'm not alone, and the sentiment will certainly grow.
chung8123 · 2026-08-28 01:27:00 UTC
As long as there are enough people than there will be a market. I think there are a lot of people that prefer human but don't want the human cost.
oblio · 2026-08-27 20:39:50 UTC
Ok, let's go the other way round. Which jobs do you think should not be automated?
Melatonic · 2026-08-28 08:36:04 UTC
Probably the ones we collectively value as human and are willing to pay for (in either our time or money or both).
And jobs where quality is paramount and or there is greater chance of risk / bodily harm
oblio · 2026-08-28 09:10:52 UTC
> Probably the ones we collectively value as human and are willing to pay for (in either our time or money or both).
Society seems to be very bad at that, and we end up with high frequency traders making millions while teachers are paid peanuts.
porridgeraisin · 2026-08-27 19:36:45 UTC
A lot of it will get automated the same way very many industries got automated. A lot of physical labour got automated once a primitive for it was created. Similarly, we have now a primitive for automating knowledge work. In the next few years to a decade, as all the right training data and runtime environments are slowly consolidated for various fields, a lot will be automated. There is no inherent reason a voice actor must be an eternal job, the same way there was no inherent reason for a draftsman or stage musician to be an eternal job.
It has nothing to do with skill. Both were very skilled jobs. Draftsman as well despite many people going to it straight from school. But computers and CAD mean that it is now necessary for someone to do a STEM degree to be a draftsman. Recorded audio made many stage musicians redundant. It is cheaper to do it this way and gets superior results, that is all, there is no further agenda.
Now too, the next generation of voice actors and many other knowledge workers will have to go up the value chain one step and operate or potentially build these tools (in whatever form they mature to in a decades time).
The current generation of voice actors will face the same situation as many before in the performance industry - stage musicians/performers for example that were made redundant by recorded audio. The reality is that most of them just left and dispersed into the economy doing completely unrelated jobs.
For software and generally computer engineers, this new primitive happens to itself be software, so it's less of a transition and an easier upskilling path to learn to build it. And building it is one step higher in the value chain than simply using it. That is a structural advantage.
Comments
For example: https://sites.suffolk.edu/jhtl/2025/10/30/game-over-for-unau...
Software developers, unfortunately, have been convinced that they don't need to unionize, so have no collective bargaining power for dealing with situations like this.
I think too many just expect that they can get by like before because they're a 10x engineer or whatever
In my experience this is what almost everyone thinks, right up to the point where it starts happening to them.
And it isn't just an individual blind spot, organizations suffer from the same thing in the sense that many companies will be happy to automate away all their labor to avoid paying the "human tax" without giving much thought to the fact that the need for the company itself will also be automated away soon after.
If you can replace nearly all of your workers with some cheap tokens and prompts, everyone else who previously would have been a customer can replace your whole company with the same thing.
To be fair, most of us spent our entire career trying our best to automate ourselves away one way or another, and always seen that as our job description.
Some people dislike automation altogether and like the computational aspect. Most people seem to enjoy constructing virtual worlds and Rube Goldberg machines.
Computation IS automation
Useful idiots always go first after the goal is accomplished.
Inexplicably for the current moment, AI has so far actually meant I have even more to do instead of less. I expect that to change eventually... but man, is it a bit of whiplash to go from wondering if my job will be around in 10 years to starting the work day and being more backed up than ever. Doubly so since the rate of change does not seem to be very evenly distributed by tech role.
Spoiler alert: unions can help with that.
It's kind of hypocritical to change just because it's now a different industry being impacted.
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252481961/Amazons-Whole-...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01762...
Sweden just has an "office worker" union.
https://www.unionen.se/in-english/this-is-unionen
Now, they cannot prevent offshoring or AI use or replacements. Very very rarely if ever.
But they can negotiate a large layoff and give better pay/conditions during work etc. This view that unions can prevent anything... when so many jobs have gone to east EU (all amazing and good at what they do but lets face it, it is due to pay) so yea there wont be any union preventing AI...
That’ll be somewhat detrimental to me perhaps (which isn’t certain), but that’s okay. I’d rather attempt to adapt to a changing world.
It is if it makes it worse for everyone else.
A union doesn't give you unilateral power; it just gives you a better seat at the bargaining table. Capital pools its resources to negotiate better as a single bloc; why shouldn't labor as well?
For your unique approach to the problems at hand. Yes, 90% of the code written is CRUD, but when it's not, how it's solved matters.
This is why we have grown with id Software games. They solved the problems, created new paths and methods for limited hardware for their time.
This is why we praised DivX and XviD back in the day. They solved problems again which are caused by the limits of the computers.
The way one solves problems matter, makes one valuable. This is why we do research and create new ways to do things.
In short, your creativity is being sold/sprayed to masses.
Yes, exactly. Do not advocate for yourself and your colleagues by joining them in a united front. Your voice does not matter. You will continue to adapt to widening wage disparities.
You will accept a pay cut and increased productivity goals and be happy to continue adapting as your cost of living keeps on climbing.
localized gains, distributed loss.
a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste. it can only make product. i also think artists should be paid living wages with good working conditions.
thank you SAG-AFTRA, WGA, IATSE, AEMI and Teamsters.
So far ;-)
Neither can a record player. Nevertheless, we consume recorded music.
Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon (and in many cases, the benefits are specifically to the more senior union members vis a vis the less senior ones.)
If you're talking about AB 1751 (Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act) I think you have this exactly backwards.
> Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon
As opposed to what? You and the GGP phrase this as a dichotomy, but I'm really curious what the other side of this is, because "not being in a union" doesn't erase your self interest or all the many many groups of people doing the same that don't feel like they're apparently being overly self interested by forming corporations, governments, non-profits, advocacy groups, etc, etc, etc
In the US. In the UK all the major unions I know don't require membership and fight for all employees in the industries they represent. E.g. as a software developer on a research project at a University I got all the negotiated benefits of the academic Union.
Unions can be a deterrent to this. If you have sectoral bargaining, you can’t get a better deal anywhere because everyone pays the same. Or even if it’s within a single company, you’re just stuck with whatever scheme the union bosses agreed to.
But also, unions are a deterrent to new employers since fewer people want to start companies in industries where unions have taken over. They’re a nightmare to deal with. Fewer employers means less competition means worse services.
We have a dynamic economy with lots of competition. It’s easy to switch jobs and find a better place to work. We should not want to give this up.
It was cynically selfish and short-sighted. The US from 1980–2020 is a perfect example of how much more complex systems, economies, worker dynamics, and second/third/nth order effects are.
Competition is generally good for the consumer, but Americans need to wake up to the fact that it's not built into the system, it's to be regulated into it, and competing is only good so far as it doesn't turn into a race to the bottom (which again, is a matter of a regulator setting the bar).
I don’t have any objection to voluntary unions. Meaning people can join them for support or collective bargaining, but that citizens can just opt to not employ anyone in the union. Unions could be support structures for workers, instead they are mafia bosses.
When have you not been able to get timely medical treatment at the fault of nurses ?
I read it more like they're against trying to stop, hinder, or prevent the use of new technology, simply because it's personally threatening.
And I feel the same way. If I was part of a union, I would believe in the collective bargaining power, but I wouldn't necessarily believe we should use that to pursue every single possible agenda that might benefit us. And I've personally pooled my capital with others in the past in order to achieve certain outcomes. And in those situations I also didn't attempt to reach so far as to limit the totally valid freedoms of others just because I knew it might be better for me.
Acting in the interest of a collective doesn't mean one must also abandon the ethics they usually employ when acting in their solo self interest.
That's not to say unions, or self-interest itself, are bad.
Caring about your ability to pay your bills, and support your family is "self-interested" in the same way that choosing to not drive into oncoming traffic is "self-interested".
The former is obviously unfair to the person whose identity is stolen. The latter is sour grapes from people who want to control the future.
I also can't bring myself to get incensed over someone using a robot to write code. It's literally the modern equivalent of smashing knitting looms.
Union = a group of people defending their rights and that includes the right to a life that isn't at the utter mercy of perpetual enshittification due to the infinite mechanical plodding of heartless (by definition) megacorporations that would never hesitate to eradicate peoples' livelihoods and treat humans as material for the orphan grinder if they could get away with it.
And by the way, they do, if you haven't noticed.
What is “your class of people”, and why is it threatened by what other people do with coding robots?
You can try to dress it up as an intellectual argument, but at root it’s the same thing that the luddites were trying to do: defending your preferred lifestyle from technological advances.
We, the ditch diggers of the world, support your unqualified resistance to the use of steam shovels! Fewer holes, slower!
You are part of a whole. You are not alone.
Saying you don’t mind to adapt is insulting.
It is possible. But it's quite uncommon in this industry in the US.
And given the current administration, it is hard to trust you'd get fair enforcement of labor laws if the company did illegal things to block unionization.
>California’s legislation passed AB 2602 and AB 1836 in September 2024, prohibiting media companies from using AI to replicate actors’ performances without their consent.
it's a very reasonable law, but it is not the win you seem to believe it to be. the actors who refuse to consent will simply be passed over in favor of those who don't. no law will ever be passed to force companies to employ humans over machines, and if it were, the industry would move elsewhere. this is not without precedent :)
speech models have got so good so quickly that you can already replace a VA -- even an AAA prima donna -- with a teenager from Fiverr, who will simply bruteforce the right inflection.
Seems like a reasonable take
e.g a lot of video game studios even the AAA ones could be co-ops. same as a lot of SAAS software companies. Linear - just announced a tender offer. I don't see a reason - why linear couldn't work as a co-op.
In any case, the overwhelming majority of jobs is non-unionized and I don't think that software developers can stop technological changes by unionizing.
They settled for a large undisclosed sum out of court. But largely won unfortunately as unionisation efforts failed
If your students are in Oklahoma, your teachers also have to be in Oklahoma. If the Oklahoma teachers unionize, you have no option but to hire those unionized teachers if you want your students taught. If your bank is in Oklahoma, you can hire programmers in London or buy a SaaS from a company based in Geneva.
Programmers also have much less of a reason to unionize, as "quit and go work somewhere else" is often a realistic option. This is usually not the case for teachers, where the only employer seeking their skills in the area is the government, whose idea of what teacher salaries should be is not based on market forces.
It’s brutal for these people. The creative industry was always hard, but this is just plain brutal.
I was bored yesterday and started watching a stupid documentary series about UFOs/UAP on Netflix. It was immediately obvious that the voice over was AI slop bullshit. All I could do is stop watching and thumb down it, but they still have my money. :(
And jobs where quality is paramount and or there is greater chance of risk / bodily harm
Society seems to be very bad at that, and we end up with high frequency traders making millions while teachers are paid peanuts.
It has nothing to do with skill. Both were very skilled jobs. Draftsman as well despite many people going to it straight from school. But computers and CAD mean that it is now necessary for someone to do a STEM degree to be a draftsman. Recorded audio made many stage musicians redundant. It is cheaper to do it this way and gets superior results, that is all, there is no further agenda.
Now too, the next generation of voice actors and many other knowledge workers will have to go up the value chain one step and operate or potentially build these tools (in whatever form they mature to in a decades time).
The current generation of voice actors will face the same situation as many before in the performance industry - stage musicians/performers for example that were made redundant by recorded audio. The reality is that most of them just left and dispersed into the economy doing completely unrelated jobs.
For software and generally computer engineers, this new primitive happens to itself be software, so it's less of a transition and an easier upskilling path to learn to build it. And building it is one step higher in the value chain than simply using it. That is a structural advantage.