I liked this article. I appreciate that it didn't try to say it is or isn't AI.

To me, the entertainment industry suffers from a lot of the same problems in most other industries that chase "efficiency", in terms of resources used and profit made. Economies and industries and labor are interdependent and more "alive" than balance sheets and bank accounts.

For the film industry, when you start moving things away from LA to "save money", it has knock on effects that happen over long periods of time. Multiple Quarterly Earnings Reports long, if you will. Local businesses that depend on the film industry close due to less work, so then there is less expertise available. Less expertise means it can command high prices. Suddenly it's too expensive to film in LA altogether. So the rest of the jobs leave too.

This pattern seems super common, not just in the film industry.

It is a narrative that interweaves with AI, too. AI is supposedly an efficiency boom. In the macroeconomy, who is the "efficiency" we are chasing for, who benefits? Who is getting the money that was "saved"? Regular people do not have more more money or time. The "efficiency" is for people who are already very rich, to get richer. Is that worth the price we're paying? I know my answer. The article gets close to it by mentioning the consolidation in Hollywood, but I do not see how we fix this without enforcing our antitrust laws. It is embarrassing what we let rich people do in the name of stock price go up.

Before AI showed up the UN released a report on the Attention Economy. It said Supply of content had vastly outstripped Demand. It decoupled because entertainment/media was being used to push other products. The telcos, amazon, google/fb and many others were all subsidizing content to push some other product. Exploding info chasing finite non growing eyeballs and time.

The real job losses are probably in commercial art. If you're making an illustration for an ad, that's almost certainly automated now. Looking at when the decline started, it's about when Stable Diffusion got going.

Some of this stuff is pre-AI, Photoshop smart tools stuff. Especially clothing ads. Nobody has a live model pose with each item color any more. Or even each item. (I used to know actress/model/waitress types in LA who did that. Grind job: "OK, the blue sweater is next, and hurry it up, we have 50 to do before lunch". But it paid OK.)

No one has any money and entertainment is the first thing you cut.

Every streaming service feels more and more user hostile. If I want to watch South Park it’s a 15$ a month subscription just for that .

Paramount Plus has nothing else.

I want to watch Lanterns, another 30$ a month.

Maybe King of The Hill , 20$ a month. The Reboot has this weird lazy animation style.

Media jobs were already shrinking with ad budgets before image models showed up, so I'd want to see the trend break, not just continue.

The easy avail of massive amounts of pre-existing "good enough" video shows to stream, music to play, games to play, books to read means we could prob stop producing anything new today and for the rest of our lives still have more to watch than we'd ever have the time to get through. I once had 5 to 7 distinct paid streaming services, at my peak, then realized that just Prime or HBO alone could keep me saturated, or say Prime plus YouTube. heck YT alone might be reaching that point for me, with free videos by indie/influencer/longtail channels.

The bar is much much much higher today to standout and be worth one's attention, and most sources of entertainment/stimulation are very fungible.

Captioning and subtitling has taken a direct hit from AI tools, but about half of it is from clients severely reducing their quality standards.

Back in the early 1990s the widely referenced BBC guidelines required 99.9% accuracy overall. Nowadays it is assumed that viewers will be used to and understanding about frequent errors, and that you don't need to take pride on your product to keep them in your platform.

"You're going to begin to see demand destruction based on the pricing environment." - Bob Jordan, CEO of Southwest Airlines, April 23rd

Interest rates and inflation have vastly more impact than AI.

Not factored in is the fact that there is just so much media now.

I think we could stop all content creation today and everyone would still have enough to last through their grandchildren's lifetimes.

And unlike a lot of things, media doesn't expire. I still regularly find albums, movies, and books from decades ago I enjoy today.

Media of all forms is just worth less now due to oversupply.

The article missed the massive increase in work for creatives that's happened over the last 10 years. Being a influencer. 3.2M people earned more than $100,000 last year being a influencer, the combined earnings are between probably $25-50B in the US.

You really need to factor them in and their earnings in any discussion like this. It's still smaller than consumer spending on this stuff was before but it's the growing part.

Have you seen media, arts and film that America produces recently? It's garbage.

Some of these graphs don't support the hypothesis. The movie one for example shows that employment is just slightly below what it was just after the financial crisis of 2008, and shows record job loss after the covid bump which we all know resulted in massive hiring sprees in a lot of sectors followed by massive layoffs. Is the movie and movie production sector really experiencing an apocalyptic downturn where the line will reach zero, or just returning to its median?

Apparently the amount of movies actually being produced has barely recovered to post 2008 levels.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/187122/movie-releases-in...

We have to many MBAs and business types on Hollywood that basically are masters of chasing local maxima, while stuck in a valley. They can only think on the short term, and for a while, by the only criteria they understand (number goes up) they were successful, but their formula was guaranteed to be short lived.

Who would know that optimizing for the next quarter would also not be a recipe for long term value creation in arts too?

> The streaming era has proven an extremely difficult transition, with traditional films and TV shows losing watch time to user-generated and increasingly AI-assisted or AI-generated content flows.

Isn’t this the wrong conclusion.

It’s that streaming as the monetization vehicle no longer creates an opportunity for movie maker to make huge returns.

Once, a blockbuster movie could make $1 billions.

Today, the movie maker only gets a sliver of the $12/mo subscription fee.

It’s lways worth considering the impact of AI through two lenses.

Is it a magic external power amplifier controlled by a handful of powerful companies? Like giant social networks for example, where the most successful network wins due to literal network effects coupled with the ability (capital, income) to pay for the technology and staff to run it. Or Big Oil who needs capital to exploit an oil field and ongoing money to pay their expert staff to work for them. Or Big Pharma, or Big Ag.

The alternate lens is that AI is like a dictionary or medicine reference or some other keystone textbook. Very expensive and time consuming to compile, but after that it requires little to no cost to duplicate and every copy helps a new person be better.

Unfortunately for the trillion dollar “labs”, I can’t see how AI is going to be the next Standard Oil, Meta, Pfizer, or John Deere. Unless the labs can somehow capture the market, destroy or outlaw the competition, or in some way cripple the general public’s ability to run their own models, then they are doomed to failure.

In the long run, Standard Oil will lose out to me hanging a solar panel off my balcony. Facebook is losing out to self organised networks using commodity chat apps (ahem, owned by whom? -all). The Labs will lose out to ollama.cpp running on my own hardware.

Now, one thing The Labs could do of course to defend against me running my own stuff, is to buy up all the VRAM so there’s none left for me! It’s as if my local inference was powered by milkshake, and they drank my milkshake, they drank it up!

The only thing I’ve been watching lately are Soviet films on youtube. Mosfilms and Gorky films have their full catalogs on there. Sergei Bondarchuk’s films are deeply moving. Seventeen Moments from Spring is incredible as well- the Soviet answer to James Bond. For some reason it feels deeply refreshing to watch these films instead of what the US has been producing.

Jobs might be down but the amount of money going to produce media, film, and "the arts" has never been higher. A lot of it is centralized but possibly these jobs have just shifted around to other roles and specialities.

The amount of video being produced has never been higher, as well.

Rise of influencers and content creators - less hollywood gatekeeping and more commoditizing the distribution of content across YT, Tiktok, instagram. Big names moving out of networks and into distribution channels they have more control over - making more content, more money, and with less resources.

It was happening before AI. The quality of everything had been going down. They realised instead of mixing sound properly, you could just bodge it. Instead of doing proper lighting, bodge it. Instead of building a set, use a big TV screen behind you.

There's so much talent overseas and it's so much cheaper. The entire reason for this change is the growth of remote work since COVID + economics.

The comparison with the music industry sounds a bit forced (in order to draw parallel with the switch to live as solution, I imagine). In the case of music and piracy, the demand collapsed, thus the bottom line of industry was directly hit. In the case of current creative fall, there's no sign there might be less demand. The lost jobs are, presumably, productivity gains.

The article is well-written and well-informed, but it's hard to really see the impact of AI just by looking at the data. Even the author attributes most of the job losses to factors other than AI, and even when AI use in the industry is clearly discussed, it's hard to draw any clear connection to job losses.

Maybe we haven't had enough time to see the full impact, but right now, most job losses seem to be attributable to shifting consumption habits and a supply of content (both professional and amateur) that vastly outweighs demand.

The framing of job "loses" is irrationally pessimistic.

When a job is no longer required, it means we (humanity) managed to do something clever to get it done with less labour - a great achievement!

This frees up those involved in that job to pursue other work, increases supply, and drives down prices - i.e. society overall experiences an increase in standards of living.

The only negatives are on the individual who's laid off through 1. frictional unemployment (the hardship someone goes through when switching jobs), and 2. potential salary reduction as they go from a lucrative job to being a newbie in their new career. But like any career, they can build that up again.

The best mindset is not to take any job/salary for granted in the first place, as it's not someone else's responsibility to employ us.

I was wondering about this recently. I visited my parents in Italy and got to watch some TV with them (at home we don't have the TV even connected to the Antenna as it is only for YT or through the media center).

I noticed that a good percentage (between 30 and 50%) is AI generated and I was wondering what impact it had on the actors/musicians/... . I mean, with a few 10s of Euros now you can achieve something that before it would've costed you several thousands or tens of thousands (depends on the quality of the production I guess).

I assumed at the time it must've been a slaughter for that part of the gig economy and this seems to confirm it.

i'm not really seeing anything new or dramatic in the data. Industries adapt to technology over time, as we see in publishing since the 60s, and i'm not seeing anything to suggest 2026 is much different

Thanks to netflix, YouTube and everything else in that spectrum the world had a choice to NOT watch heavily americanized weirdly moralized movies and series and now prefers to not do so.

American media dying is a natural effect that was ongoing even before AI

Without knowing where these workers went, it's hard to take this sectioned data too seriously

For all this data knows, a decent number of them are making online content with AI assisted tools.

the author does concede the higher level data is less dramatic, in the closing statement but not before he got the clicks

The same thing happened in Canada in the 1930's, but the force behind it was neither artificial nor intelligent, just greedy.

My media diet has dropped steadily for 15 years now. I don’t know how much of it is just aging, and how much truly is tired/fatigue for the products offered. And the burden/complexity of streaming has basically just led me to throw my hands in the air and find other things to do. I already spend too much time tapping on my phone, much less watch yet another screen.

911 an the internet killed high culture. The first big inflection is 2001 and continues on a glide slope, with a drop for covid and then AI, but it was already looking dire.

Mergers are also a huge factor, and the recent Warner/Paramount merger is going to cost a lot of jobs (even more so because the merged company will be so deeply in debt that it will have to aggressively cut expenses).

> overall job turnover rates remain extremely low

you have to be very careful quoting those sources that are based on incorrect data. One might have three jobs and make 5 times less than it used to be. It's a rabbit hole that needs its own thorough research.

How does one consider, depression, inflation, interest rates and investments, purchasing power, and other impactful economic downturns for such analysis? During this window a consequential war in Europe, another one in Iran leading to an energy crisis, has happened as well which could accelerate the existing trends in one way or the other. I think any serious comparison should control for these factors.

I’d just guess it’s close to none of the layoffs are AI. rather, in a world of anyone can broadcast to the world on YouTube the number of creators that can reach an audience has grown 10000x. The glut of content means far far less market to support the old media

Very little. It's that America's tax incentives are not competitive. They fly crews to make game shows from LA to london because its cheaper to shoot a show there. There's strong momentum to change that at the moment, there's a bill that might actually get passed that will make the tax environment competitive again in the states that stack theirs on it.

Honestly I think it's because everything sucks these days. I know there is a lot of survivorship bias going on but _something_ has changed. I have recently been on a 1980-2010's movie binge. It seemed like movies before were raw and real. Now everything feels like it's plastic and made in a lab, dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

Don't even get me started on shows. There are a ton of great ones but now they have 2-4, sometimes even 5 year gaps! The "increased" quality doesn't warrant it! I know people say "well now they're movie-grade" but I really could not care less. I don't need every episode of every show to be blockbuster quality. Just make it not suck! I would love to go to the movies and buy all the subscription services but it's simply not worth it! /rant

> Take the unexpected resurgence in book sales

At least some of this will be AI companies buying and scanning every book available...

Based on the rise of short form video content, this seems like amateurs are just outcompeting professionals for eyeballs.

Before I dive into a relatively long article here, can someone tell me if it does, in fact, say how much is AI?

Most of the jobloss seems to be due to the movie industry. The movie industry has been a flop machine over the last decade out side a handful of successes. That probably has more to do with jobloss than anything ai related.

It's purely anecdotal, but the word I've heard from the industry is that the number of sfx and animation jobs had stayed the same, but the bids are coming in much much lower. The example was $500k jobs were now coming in around $50k.

AI is the perfect scapegoat.

Barclays laying off thousands in the UK obviously puts the decision on AI productivity gain.

I think some of it may be demand side.

Many people spend hours browsing Tik Tok rather than watching film or television.

Even long form YouTube videos are highly popular. Many folks spend time watching those rather than movies or tv. I believe Tom Hanks was speaking about this many years ago.

That being said….

I remember growing up and my teachers would always emphasize the importance of reading. I’m sure it would be a great thing for humanity if everyone spent their free time reading books rather than on film or television. In such a scenario would people complain about job loss then? This could be a fruitful idea for a science fiction short story come to think of it.

AI is decimating entertainment employment, just not in US, but in China.

The outsource comment was interesting. Gaming didn't come up in this article but seems similarly hit. I was recently surprised to see how much game dev work is done outside the US for American companies.

Also thought the graphs around covid were interesting, there wasn't a spike up or anything it's just been consistently down.

The article said we're not in a recession. I thought we were lol

How much is TikTok?

Over on the entertainment side, video is getting really good. Yes, there's a huge amount of AI slop, but the good stuff is quite good.

- Kono Express. [1] Disney laid off an character animator from the Star Wars factory. The animator decided to see what was possible with the best modern tools. He's using both AI tools and Unreal Engine. There are six episodes now, and each one is a bit better than the last, as he gets a handle on the technology. The first episode looks like generic sci-fi stuff, at good quality but not yet perfect. By episode three, he has this nailed. It keeps getting better. Episode six [2] is a delight. He's now almost up to current Hollywood quality. One person, turning out half an hour of content every few weeks. Who needs Disney any more?

- Asian vertical dramas. 17,000 episodes per day. Apparently 55% of China's AI capacity is cranking these out. Search for "asian drama creation tools". Amusingly, Google and Bing have completely different tool lists. These are all software as a service products, with accounts and token charges. Currently, visuals are quite good, with some notable errors. Complex patterns on clothing don't stay consistent, for example. Continuity errors remain common. Automatically generated audio is currently terrible, at least in the English translations. Plots are so cliche that it's clear people are re-using the same prompts. "Heiress girl returns from countryside" is very popular. Here's a recent drama, about startup working hours.[3] The plot is silly but the visuals are OK.

- There's starting to be a thing for turning out movies based on old SF novels. So far, these seem unauthorized by the original author, but that will change. In time, every good book will have its movie.

The good stuff in this space is getting to be better than the Marvel Overexpanded Universe.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikm5lP0zsi0

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XklUIGp6jH0

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7b9xNEkhlc

Around 2010–2012, I made videos for Vocaloid producers' songs in Japan. It was almost entirely unpaid. What I got out of it was skills.

> Media firms are decidedly coy about their AI use, both to protect against public backlash and, more financially important, to preserve the legal basis for their copyrights

Lying preserves the legal basis for copyright?

Maybe what that means is this: it's not illegal to lie about something being copyrighted (to discourage copying) if you don't actually take it as far as taking someone to court over it.

How much of this is globalization?

International media is much better than it used to be.

>It was the turn of the millennium, and Metallica had a problem.

I'm sure all their fans will agree that it's a good thing Metallica has such a consistent track record of being all about "love, energy and heavy music", instead of ever divisively singing about or getting their hands dirty with politics, and stayed in their lane and stuck to romantic love songs and upbeat pop jingles like One, And Justice for All, Disposable Heros, Blackened, Eye of the Beholder, The Shortest Straw, Don't Tread on Me, For Whom the Bell Tolls, etc.

I find it odd that this article ignores live theater when that is the natural parallel to "live shows" or "tours" for film and television.

Also how much is the end of ZIRP and how much is jobs moving abroad? I'd love to see the article go a bit deeper

> In other words, the primary impacts of AI art will be on culture and society rather than the macroeconomy.

In that case we're in deep shit. It's already worrisome to see the effects that various technological "advances" (like smartphones) have had on culture and society. This is likely to make things even worse.

I avoid everything that was made with AI. Every video on YT gets a downvote having an AI created preview picture. I would not buy, watch such movies.

the article is interestingly made think more about the recent timeline since covid, sequential money printing bonanza followed by historical sacking of VC and all kind of money current AI bubble accelerated with faster job transfer to low income locations like India and overall “productivity gains” by the least competent corporate plankton with huge expertise devaluation

Honestly: our media and film is largely pretty terrible. The arts may be worth a lament.

I wish the article had split TV and movies because there are different factors at play.

Movies just don't make economic sense unless they're blockbusters and that's mainly because of the decline in movie theaters for various reasons but also the death of physical media sales. DVD sales in the 1990s were a bit of a Golden Age. Matt Damon talked about this [1].

Up until the 2000s the TV economic model was:

1. Produce a full season of TV, typically ~22 episodes, and air those on network TV. Sell ads;

2. Sell physical media. Unlike movies, this wasn't as big of a factor until serialized TV came about but it was a factor; and

3. Syndication. Basic cable channels and foreign distributors would pay to air TV shows.

Premium cable (eg HBO) was an exception. It still had foreign distribution but cable subscriptions replaced ad revenue.

In all of these cases, actors, writers, etc would get residuals or back end participation. For what became TV shows, there was a whole ecosystem of pilots. Scripts would be bought. Some would get greenlit for pilots. Some of those would get a half or full season order.

A TV season meant basically a full year of work for those involved. All the pilot activity meant more work. Residuals allowed actors and writers to survive between jobs. There are still people getting significant residuals from Friends from over 30 years ago.

All of that died with streaming. Netflix streaming first began as a means of monetizing old seasons of TV and older movies. It was additional revenue. But as Netflix grew, all the studios saw dollar signs and launched "me too" streaming services, most of which were doomed from the start. Streamers began to cannibalize the syndication and physical media revenue.

Netflix in particular made the decision relatively early that they needed original content to survive. By having a worldwide customer base, they didn't care about physical media and didn't have to pay for syndication. Also because of some unfortunate contracts in the late 2000s, there was little to no residuals for streaming so that too was more saved money.

And the cost-cutting continued. Smaller seasons (8-13 episodes) with smaller writing rooms meant fewer people employed, particularly when it might be 2-3 years between seasons. Suddenly you needed 2 jobs a year to survive where once it was 1. That's a huge difference because you're lucky to get 1 job. And you got no residuals on top of that.

This coincided with more general Hollywood cost-cutting to move productions out of LA to Canada (particularly Toronto but also Vancouver), Atlanta and elsewhere.

Hollywood was an ecosystem. Short term profit-seeking has basically destroyed it but also, so has the high cost of housing. LA used to be somewhere you could live cheaply and this enabled people to chase their dream. Many didn't make it but this was the entry to the funnel. Some did.

Now there are fewer jobs and those are increasingly dominated by second and third generation nepo babies.

Why do you think there's so much recycled IP now? Relaunches of 1990s and 2000s properties. The people involved are out of work. That's why. And it's easier to greenlight something with a track record. Also, notice how many podcasts there are of people who used to be in shows? The Office is particularly egregious for this. I swear half the cast have podcasts now. Why? Because they're out of work too.

I cannot overstate how much expensive housing has strangled Hollywood. Expensive housing is an input into everything you produce and do. Yet people see it as their retirement. What retirement? If your $200k house is now $1M, so is every other house. You still only own one housing unit's worth of wealth. So you need to multiple houses, to be a landlord or Airbnb host. And we wonder why the housing supply sucks.

[1]: https://streamable.com/pedvjq

AI is a definite possibility, part of it makes me wonder how much it's about the new skills needed for film/media are tied to technology or AI.

Technology has almost always been adopted in Hollywood.

Media grew to become social media, and skills of social media became relevant and new positions.

this is a terrible article, fire that writer

the media landscape has changed. youtube, tiktok, reels are the dominant media. the money the creators make there dwarfs this 200k loss of jobs.

The issue is, its global, creators aren't limited to desk jobs in america.

The whole story is in the title and terms bieng used to subjectify the conversation, jobs?, creative class?, are you fucking kidding me? And yes it's AI finnishing the job of making DECORTIVE, 1d and 2d choices truely trivial, nothing more than that,as that SHIT was never, and will never be creative or in any sense if the word Art, and has now, ha!, been fully democratised. The earliest and hardest pushing adopters of AI in the decorative field are almost certainly enjoying a massive boost in productivity and staying ahead of the general wave, but the mediocre are getting drowned by the undertow. Those with actual physical skills with a real touch and drive can drum up work with a personal page and a phone, with endless offers of related real world projects that require some detail or embelishment, that comes along with all the real world interactions with every kind and class of human and the sinceer appreciation for doing the THING that fixed the irksome and often ugly problem. Anybody clicking for there daily bread better look the fuck out right now.

Ctrl+f, monopoly, zero results.

yeah, worthless analysis of side effects without taking into account any causation variable to anchor anything to anything.

Art is gatekept by distribution. You only pay artist because otherwise they will go independent or use the other studio/record-label/etc. It's the only reason artists got paid handsomely in the past.

Today, money only come from spotify, netflix, and soon one or two movie studios. News and Newspaper is already gone, it's past the point of monopoly and into billionaire personal toy.

This also answers why live performance is the only thing going up. It is the only thing that still require any choice from the artist. Everything else is give-me-or-media-or-else.