Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AI The Media IT

The Workers Who Lost Their Jobs To AI (theguardian.com) 158

"How does it feel to be replaced by a bot?" asks the Guardian — interviewing several creative workers who know:
  • Gardening copywriter Annabel Beales "One day, I overheard my boss saying to a colleague, 'Just put it in ChatGPT....' [My manager] stressed that my job was safe. Six weeks later, I was called to a meeting with HR. They told me they were letting me go immediately. It was just before Christmas...

    "The company's website is sad to see now. It's all AI-generated and factual — there's no substance, or sense of actually enjoying gardening."
  • Voice actor Richie Tavake "[My producer] told me he had input my voice into AI software to say the extra line. But he hadn't asked my permission. I later found out he had uploaded my voice to a platform, allowing other producers to access it. I requested its removal, but it took me a week, and I had to speak to five people to get it done... Actors don't get paid for any of the extra AI-generated stuff, and they lose their jobs. I've seen it happen."
  • Graphic designer Jadun Sykes "One day, HR told me my role was no longer required as much of my work was being replaced by AI. I made a YouTube video about my experience. It went viral and I received hundreds of responses from graphic designers in the same boat, which made me realise I'm not the only victim — it's happening globally..."

Labor economist Aaron Sojourner recently reminded CNN that even in the 1980s and 90s, the arrival of cheap personal computers only ultimately boosted labor productivity by about 3%. That seems to argue against a massive displacement of human jobs — but these anecdotes suggest some jobs already are being lost...

Thanks to long-time Slashdot readers Paul Fernhout and Bruce66423 for sharing the article.


The Workers Who Lost Their Jobs To AI

Comments Filter:
  • by greytree ( 7124971 ) on Sunday June 01, 2025 @04:07AM (#65420079)
    "That seems to argue against a massive displacement of human jobs — but these anecdotes suggest some jobs already are being lost..."

    The "but" in that sentence does not belong there.
    i.e. There will be a small displacement of human jobs AND that small displacement is already happening.
  • by Nighttime ( 231023 ) on Sunday June 01, 2025 @04:21AM (#65420089) Homepage Journal

    I work for a software company in the UK. About six months ago, they laid off about 50% of the R&D dept with the idea that AI can do the development work instead. Then in recent months, they took the axe to the services and support teams with the idea that AI chatbots can answer customers' queries. We've seen support teams of 10 reduced to a team of 2. Some support teams are now down to one person, who are having to manage 100-200 tickets for the product they are responsible for. Literally no contingency there for holidays and sick days. Nor did they run any of the AI stuff in parallel with humans to see if it was as effective as providing ticket resolutions. Our customers were already getting pissed off at the declining level of support due to other non AI-related job cuts over the past couple of years; they're going to be really pissed off over the next few months and will probably start pissing off.

    • I work for a software company in the UK. About six months ago, they laid off about 50% of the R&D dept with the idea that AI can do the development work instead. Then in recent months, they took the axe to the services and support teams with the idea that AI chatbots can answer customers' queries. We've seen support teams of 10 reduced to a team of 2. Some support teams are now down to one person, who are having to manage 100-200 tickets for the product they are responsible for. Literally no contingency there for holidays and sick days. Nor did they run any of the AI stuff in parallel with humans to see if it was as effective as providing ticket resolutions. Our customers were already getting pissed off at the declining level of support due to other non AI-related job cuts over the past couple of years; they're going to be really pissed off over the next few months and will probably start pissing off.

      Sounds like a great way to go out of business.

      • by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Sunday June 01, 2025 @09:45AM (#65420385) Homepage

        Sounds like a great way to go out of business.

        ... at which point, the company's costs will drop to zero; making their cost-cutting initiative a complete success!

      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Sounds like a great way to go out of business.

        Chances are they are out of business. Hopefully the OP got some severance out of it and likely good riddance.

        You can be angry they laid you off, or you can reflect that they laid you off and paid you because they're going out of business. You already described how it's spiralling down the drain but cutting R&D and support. One person isn't going to keep up with 100-200 tickets a day and it's going to back up and customers are going to be angry. If it's a goo

      • The suits will cash out and be welcomed to a new company with open arms for making such an incredible profit.

    • So, typical behavior for a PE company: slash and burn, and mumble something to investors about AI being used to reduce headcount.

      This isn't a story about the *successful* replacement of people with AI. It's a story about the *claimed* replacement of people with AI, going down in flames.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Sounds like that business is dine for. Once the peopel are gone, the knowledge is gone and there is no fast way to get it back.

    • due to other non AI-related job cuts over the past couple of years

      ... so the company isn't doing well, they're damned if they cut jobs and they're damned if they don't, AI didn't cause that.

    • They will hire fewer people for less money and if they can get away with it offshore or h1bs.

      Just like with 2008 they fired huge numbers of people and they rehired the bare minimum they needed to do.

      Because of a lack of antitrust law there is very very little competition so businesses can get away with this shit without losing market share during the chaos.

      Just like how stock BuyBacks cause economic crashes and the Federal reserve uses high interest rates to engineer those crashes in order to ba
    • by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

      Is this software company, by coincidence, trying to be purchased or IPO? Because that's the kind of behavior that you see before a company's founders bank out...

  • by locater16 ( 2326718 ) on Sunday June 01, 2025 @05:04AM (#65420123)
    Does AI do a good job at any of these? Well, mostly no, but that won't stop idiot bosses from replacing people anyway. I've tried every AI voice generator out there, the best sound a lot less robotic than they used to. But you can't actually get these things to "act" at all yet. Maybe if you're some VO for say, corporate training videos, you can be replaced, but that's about it so far.

    Similar with graphic design, I just asked for some silly "4 screen folding phone with 8 cameras!" type stuff from every major chatbot just last week, same prompt as a competition. Only Gemini gave me anything the least bit interesting or even close really, and only then if you really wanted specifically silly AI generated looking meme stuff.

    Copywriters are the one thing I can actually see reliably being replaced at the moment, but only by people that aren't complete idiots. You could probably replace 3 copywriters with one that uses AI, AI can be more persuasive than the average human in scientific tests [arxiv.org], but the second you rely on your idiot boss to decide what a good ad is your ad firm goes belly up. Not that this has stopped ad firms before, they have one of the highest rates of going bust out of any industry in history, they're 90% run by idiots.

    So are any of these examples a good idea? Maybe the VO guy, but that's about it so far. But that's not going to stop idiot bosses from destroying their own companies and jobs by doing this anyway!
    • AI does a fair job at voice acting and graphic design already, in a few areas, or those people wouldn't be losing their jobs. And a positive effect is that it makes those services available to people / teams for whom it used to be too expensive, like hobbyists and indie developers or creators.
    • Maybe if you're some VO for say, corporate training videos, you can be replaced, but that's about it so far.

      Yes, you could replace this entire video [youtube.com] with AI and it would be an improvement. I have to watch it every year now.

      Copywriters are the one thing I can actually see reliably being replaced at the moment, but only by people that aren't complete idiots. You could probably replace 3 copywriters with one that uses AI

      Most copywriters are doing shit work now already. It's churn churn churn for SEO. AI can do that just fine without any help. It doesn't matter if it puts out bullshit, it's replacing bullshit.

  • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Sunday June 01, 2025 @05:22AM (#65420141)

    Labor economist Aaron Sojourner recently reminded CNN that even in the 1980s and 90s, the arrival of cheap personal computers only ultimately boosted labor productivity by about 3%. That seems to argue against a massive displacement of human jobs — but these anecdotes suggest some jobs already are being lost..

    No shit they're already being lost. We really need to STOP comparing this revolution to any other in history. Because it is like no other. Even the personal computer was looking to enhance human efficiency. AI and automation are looking to replace it altogether. Because AI is targeting the human mind.

    AGI? Please. AI is being hired everywhere under the name Good Enuff. If you're not perfect, AI doesn't have to be either. And AI will work 24/7/365 without bitching about all that needy shit humans require. Like pay raises, sleep, time off, vacations, sick pay, lunch breaks, and retirement funds.

    Unless you like your UBI to come in more flavors than plain welfare, we best start reminding our "representative" leaders that this is a major fucking problem to solve. Now. Greed is deaf, dumb, and blind. Otherwise, it might think beyond a fiscal quarter or two and realize a 50% revenue drop and crashing of The Precious stock market was ultimately caused by firing your customer base and replacing it with AI. As if welfare-flavored UBI is gonna sustain the GDP revenue circus of excess.

    The Rich will become quite edible. Let's just hope AI doesn't figure out how many computes per mile Soylent Green might achieve after that.

    • Unless you like your UBI to come in more flavors than plain welfare, we best start reminding our "representative" leaders that this is a major fucking problem to solve.

      My brother in Chris, there will be no UBI. They are making that clear all over the world right now. Fascism is rising.

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Unless you like your UBI to come in more flavors than plain welfare, we best start reminding our "representative" leaders that this is a major fucking problem to solve.

        My brother in Chris, there will be no UBI. They are making that clear all over the world right now. Fascism is rising.

        Funny thing: Proper fascism needs jobs for everybody. This crappy copy has not even the limited future that real fascism has.

        • Proper fascism needs jobs for everybody.

          You needn't worry; I'm sure our respected leaders will provide proper venues for us peons to redeem ourselves through work. After all, don't they tell us that work will set you free? (though it sounds better in the original German).

        • by dryeo ( 100693 )

          Funny thing: Proper fascism needs jobs for everybody. This crappy copy has not even the limited future that real fascism has.

          A war economy usually means jobs for everyone and we seem to be ramping up in that direction. Now the push is 5% of GDP to ready for war, going to be lots of jobs there. How it will be paid for is the next question.

    • by MTEK ( 2826397 )

      The Rich will become quite edible.

      I dunno. You might be able to eat some of them, but not the ones you really want. Today's ultra wealthy have security/intel teams comprised of former SEALs, Delta operators, Secret Service, etc, and can move anywhere/anytime in the world they want (along with their wealth). They have eyes/ears everywhere and are pretty much untouchable.

      • From: https://www.vice.com/en/articl... [vice.com]
        ""The billionaires understand that they're playing a dangerous game," Rushkoff said. "They are running out of room to externalize the damage of the way that their companies operate. Eventually, there's going to be the social unrest that leads to your undoing."
        Like the gated communities of the past, their biggest concern was to find ways to protect themselves from the "unruly masses," Rushkoff said. "The question

    • This doomsday scenario is as likely as Soylent Green itself.

      Yes, AI will replace some kinds of jobs, just as automation and mechanization have been replacing jobs for centuries. But people will find new kinds of work to do, also just as they have done for centuries. The vast majority of those farming jobs from the 1800s are gone forever. Most of those factory jobs from the 1900s are gone forever. Do we miss those lost jobs? Most of us do not.

      • by dryeo ( 100693 )

        The problem is that there is usually a lag between the old jobs disappearing and the new jobs appearing. During that lag, things can be unpleasant for the those who lost their jobs.

        • This is true enough. That lag used to be *really* long, like many decades. These days, just as new technology comes at us at lightning pace, so do the new job opportunities.

          Did you notice, for example, the major rise in unemployment between 1970 and now, when factory work in the US dropped from 30% to 10%? There were literally millions of manufacturing jobs lost. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se... [stlouisfed.org]

          No, you didn't notice those huge spikes in unemployment? Neither did anybody, because they didn't happen, and the

    • Had massive amounts of technological unemployment too. They just don't teach you about it in anything below a 200 level history course. You might get a paragraph or two on it in a 100 level College history course.

      Christopher Columbus being a nice guy isn't the only myth you're taught in grade school history. Honestly pretty much everything is a lie of one kind or another.
    • At least not in one bite. Violent revolution doesn't work because the combination of hyper advanced propaganda and militarized police means that any attempt at revolution is going to be quickly put down. You might be able to form terrorist cells that occasionally blow up schools but you won't even get to the rich schools just the poor ones.

      We are old farts so we are probably old enough to remember the Rodney King riots.

      People like the point of those and say that the rioters were animals because they
    • > We really need to STOP comparing this revolution to any other in history. Because it is like no other.

      Nonsense. At one point, 90+% of us were stoop-labor agricultural peasants, typically unfree (serfs or outright slaves). Now fewer than 5% work on farm, and the ones who do are typical riding in air-conditioned combines with GPS steering and an Internet connection rather than hoeing a bean field by hand. Yet somehow we don't have 85% unemployment. Weird, huh?

      The only way in which this revolution is "lik

    • There's a significant question as to what degree even the most advanced current AI can replace a human expert. The answer DOES vary a lot with the field. but in most fields the answer seems to be "not yet". In many it can do a part of the job, so if it weren't changing rapidly the answer would be to refactor the jobs, but it *is* changing rapidly, so often (usually?) any particular refactoring would be obsolete by the time it was implemented.

      And *IF* Ai2027 ( https://ai-2027.com/ [ai-2027.com] ) is even approximately c

  • Jobs which are more tolerant of context-driven inaccuracies are more likely to be replaced by AI but they are also the most likely to come back first. Since judging the quality of creative output is almost entirely subjective, it is far easier for a handful of experienced editors to trawl through some slop and edit it just enough so as to keep themselves employed. This means it is a lot easier to justify getting rid of the juniors and the janitors. However, all the commercial interests trying to sell you AI
    • existing* Sorry, I probably should have made my point using an LLM, right? The question is, did I?
      • I think the businesses likely to take up AI LLM generated slop are the same that were ready to offshore a call centre. These are the companies that don't really care about their customers but care about the shareholders. Be concerned if you're working for one of those.

        AI only has to be marginally better to deal with than the trouble involved in switching to another provider.

        However, I do also believe that over time humans will make life better for those who are dealing with AI slop, if you want to succeed a

  • Just waiting for the first big lawsuit where an AI does something that gets someone hurt and the lawyers have a field day with it...
    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      Stop waiting. The judge has already ruled that the company can't escape a trial over causing a kid to commit suicide. (I think that was on Slashdot yesterday or the day before.)

  • If the courts rule in favor of copyright holders (which is appearing more probable as the cases wind through the courts, and as AI companies keep making admissions of copyright theft), all of these companies racing to replace people with copyright infringement are going to be ripe for the suing.

  • As a developer I'm even afraid of losing my job to AI, but in the end it's no different then all the factoryworkers losing their jobs to automation and weavers before them. Except society still hasn't got a plan on how to deal with all those people without a job being able to live. But then again, that might explain things like COVID, the war in the Ukraine and Gaza, the threat of war of the west on countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea and China, war and diseases will cut down the population...
    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      No different? Can you predict what jobs you can currently train for that will NOT be taken by AIs of one sort or another?

      A few decades ago I wrote a paper called "Be a garbage man" as my prediction for one of the last jobs to be thoroughly automated. Part of the reason was the flexible skill-set required and another part was the relatively low pay.

  • ... shareholder value!
  • Sure, a copywriter for a gardening site doesn't seem like an essential function for society. I'm not into gardening myself, so I probably wouldn't miss her.

    So what do you do for a living? Do you do it sitting in front of a computer? What percentage of jobs would you define as "knowledge work?" Do you realize how many of those jobs have gone away, and how many more will disappear in the near future? You don't have to buy the AI hype about "superintelligence" to understand that what it can do right now is cau

  • At some point, AI, robots, and automation are going to render the vast majority of jobs obsolete. At that point, the robber barons will consider us all to be "surplus to requirements".

    The economy won't be anything like it is now. They won't need us to make stuff for them, nor will they need us to buy stuff from them. They will control, and therefor own, everything: all of the means of production, all of the resources, and all of the power.

    They will have extracted all of the value from us that they possibly

  • These are statistics for my country, but I assume any western country with the aging problem looks pretty much the same. I looked at the amount of work hours, divided by average hours of work for one full time worker and took that as percentage of whole population. Range was 15 years. Here are the results:
    1. Total amount of work has not really changed. The drop in work is less than half a percent. (I expected the drop to be much larger)
    (1.5. The amount of work has not changed much, the work has shifted fro

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Sunday June 01, 2025 @12:48PM (#65420649) Journal
    What seems particularly depressing about these stories of 'replacement' is that they aren't really about replacements; they're about inferior substitutions people think that they can get away with(and, unfortunately, may be correct).

    Even if 'AI' were, in fact, a human-or-better replacement for humans there would obviously be a teensy little social problem implied by the relatively abrupt breakdown of the notion that people who possess useful skills and are willing to apply them diligently can be economic participants in ways that make their lives at least endurable; but it wouldn't necessarily be a problem for the optimistic theory that the incentives generally align to encourage quality. Sure, most of the people theorizing that implicitly assumed that humans would be doing the better or more innovative work; but the thesis didn't require that.

    What we are getting is worse. The disruption is being drawn out a bit, because 'AI' is not in fact generally fit for purpose; but the incentives have turned toward delivering shit. 'Creative' is an obvious target because that's the designation for a swath of jobs where quality is understood to exist but there aren't really rigid failure states: anyone who thinks that lorem ipsum and literature are interchangeable, or that there's nothing worth doing in graphic design once you've identified somewhere between 2 and 4 colors that the human eye can distinguish from one another is abjectly beneath human culture(and I don't mean that in the 'High Art' snob sense: don't even try to tell me that all shlocky summer blockbusters are equally entertaining; or that no billboards differ meaningfully; or that some social media shitposters aren't more fun to read than others); but it's not like the CMS will throw an error if you insert a regurgitated press release where journalism was supposed to go; or sack the writer who is actually passionate about the subject and have the intern plagiarize a viral listicle instead.

    The whole enterprise is really a sordid revelation less of what 'AI' can do than of the degree to which people were really just hoping for an excuse to get away with less and worse; and the ongoing trend of societies feeling relentlessly poorer and more fixated on scarcity even when their GDPs allegedly just keep going up; and economic statistics assure us that productivity metrics look amazing.

    Just tell me that it's not fucking bullshit that a generation ago any city of nontrivial size had several newspapers, all with enough staff to actually fill a 'newsroom' that was probably a literal place at the time; and even podunk towns often had one with a few plucky wearers of multiple hats; and now we've got bot slop. In inflation-adjusted dollars the GDP per capita has just slightly less than doubled since 1985; and journalists and editors are both relatively cheap for what they do and produce something that can be copied across a subscriber base of almost any size at close to zero marginal cost.

    This is getting TL;DR; but fuck it, it's honestly profoundly depressing: we are all, constantly, being made to cosplay a vastly poorer society(except on the specific occasions when it's time to justify the order of things; in which case look at what big TVs you can buy!) despite the numbers allegedly saying that we are richer than ever. 'AI' is a new and exceptionally versatile tool for continuing this trend; but you see it everywhere; both in terms of what just gets done and in terms of arguments that get made: why is it harder to get news made by journalists when the metro area being served is ~50% more populous and a trifle under twice as wealthy, per capita, than it was back in the day? What do you mean that's what has happened to housing affordability and even the nominally-luxurious 'McMansions' are all plastic plumbing and sawdust and formaldehyde pseudowood in places they think it won't be noticed? What do you mean tenure-track faculty positions are being slashed in favor of adjuncts who could earn

Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith. - Paul Tillich, German theologian and historian

Working...