(5 minute read)
In Part 3 of the series, the author also identifies the year 1987 as an inflection point when jobs lost to automation (-16%) started to become inadequately replaced by new workplace opportunities (+10%). Fun.
However, unbeknownst to many including myself as I'm learning more about it, cameras are becoming increasingly more powerful. Virtual Production is one example and I did a post on virtual production which you should check out.
Famous YouTuber Marques Brownlee, a.k.a MKBHD, did a high-quality video in 2018 showcasing Motorized Precision's KIRA Camera pictured below. This one of a kind machine uses state-of-the-art, NASA-level robotics to shoot video footage in a way that no human could perform. According to Brownlee's video, it can move up to 9 feet per second in any direction while carrying up to 40 pounds 🤯. Also apparently it can be controlled by an Xbox controller, which is pretty cool, but I digress.
As cameras become more powerful, that 60% risk level for camera operators now starts to make sense, but I'd like to believe 40% of that non-risk is based on the fact that operating a camera is also a work of art. Camera movements often mimic human behavior and as an imperfect human being, cameramen make films feel more real.
So while camera operators will likely not become extinct, I do believe there could be fewer assistant camera operators in decades to come.
The Incoming Gen R (Robot)
Our jobs are increasingly at risk of automation, a process by which our jobs are done by machines and by any automatic equipment. This is not an opinion but an insidious self-fulfilling prophecy of the modern world. The MIT news office recently released a 3-part series (1) (2) (3) that uses new research to study the effects of robots and automation on employment, and I wanted to share some shocking stats that'll ground you.
"From 1990 to 2007... adding one additional robot per 1,000 workers reduced the national employment-to-population ratio by about 0.2 percent, with some areas of the U.S. affected far more than others. This means each additional robot added in manufacturing replaced about 3.3 workers nationally, on average." (Part 1)
"That increased use of robots in the workplace also lowered wages by roughly 0.4 percent during the same time period." (Part 1)
In Part 3 of the series, the author also identifies the year 1987 as an inflection point when jobs lost to automation (-16%) started to become inadequately replaced by new workplace opportunities (+10%). Fun.
The Oxford Study
Keeping with the theme of this blog, I wanted to look at how this affects jobs in the movie industry based on an Oxford University research paper called The Future of Employment, written by Oxford's Director of Future of Work and Dyson Professor in Machine Learning.
Their 2013 analysis measures the impact of "computerization" on employment, or the probability of automation for 702 distinct occupations.
The variables they used to determine if a job can be effectively controlled by computers are defined in the picture below.
To briefly summarize their methodology, the two researchers analyzed 70 occupations, and for each one, manually labeled each of the nine variables with a 1 or 0: 1 if automatable and 0 if not. They leveraged current research and used their best judgment for the labeling, only assigning labels to occupations for which they were most confident. They then used this data in a Machine Learning algorithm to ultimately train and test a model that would automatically classify the other 632 jobs.
Now comes the fun part. Combining this data with the Bureau of Labor Statistics gives us a snapshot of...
1) Which jobs are at risk in the film industry
2) How those jobs compare to others in the industry
3) The number of people currently employed at those jobs, thus implying the magnitude of the loss
My Infographic and commentary can be found below.
I picked New York and California to get a sense of the number of jobs in those two states, which are the primary filmmaking hubs in the country.
When you compare this to other jobs in red such as camera operators and equipment technicians, you may start to suspect a positive correlation between technical jobs and risk of job loss due to automation. So the more technical the job, the higher the risk of it being done by a robot in the future. Conversely, a less technical and more creative profession like a writer or art director seems to have a much lower probability of becoming automated, which is something to keep an eye on.
After Equipment Repairers comes a big drop off to the Costume Attendants who arrive at a 61% chance of falling victim to robot automation. This falls in line with three other occupations not pictured here, which are all at risk: Hand Sewers (99%), Sewing Machine Operators (89%), Tailors; Dressmakers, and Custom Sewers (84%). All of these costume-related jobs are expected to be automated according to the study as it appears robots can do this very traditional, and well-respected, skill more efficiently than humans.
I have some mixed feelings on the Camera Operator occupation's risk at 60%. Operating a camera has long been a baseline skill that many filmmakers must learn to do, especially if you're an aspiring Director or Photographer. Some shots need human guidance and instinct to get the full effect of what the Director wants to convey. And films like Saving Private Ryan (1998) do better with handheld cameras or "guerilla filmmaking" to express a deeper thematic element... (continued below).
The variables they used to determine if a job can be effectively controlled by computers are defined in the picture below.
To briefly summarize their methodology, the two researchers analyzed 70 occupations, and for each one, manually labeled each of the nine variables with a 1 or 0: 1 if automatable and 0 if not. They leveraged current research and used their best judgment for the labeling, only assigning labels to occupations for which they were most confident. They then used this data in a Machine Learning algorithm to ultimately train and test a model that would automatically classify the other 632 jobs.
Now comes the fun part. Combining this data with the Bureau of Labor Statistics gives us a snapshot of...
1) Which jobs are at risk in the film industry
2) How those jobs compare to others in the industry
3) The number of people currently employed at those jobs, thus implying the magnitude of the loss
My Infographic and commentary can be found below.
I picked New York and California to get a sense of the number of jobs in those two states, which are the primary filmmaking hubs in the country.
Endangered Occupation Assessment
Starting from the top in red, Camera and Photographic Equipment Repairers are the most at risk, analyzed to have a 97% probability of becoming a defunct occupation due to automation.When you compare this to other jobs in red such as camera operators and equipment technicians, you may start to suspect a positive correlation between technical jobs and risk of job loss due to automation. So the more technical the job, the higher the risk of it being done by a robot in the future. Conversely, a less technical and more creative profession like a writer or art director seems to have a much lower probability of becoming automated, which is something to keep an eye on.
After Equipment Repairers comes a big drop off to the Costume Attendants who arrive at a 61% chance of falling victim to robot automation. This falls in line with three other occupations not pictured here, which are all at risk: Hand Sewers (99%), Sewing Machine Operators (89%), Tailors; Dressmakers, and Custom Sewers (84%). All of these costume-related jobs are expected to be automated according to the study as it appears robots can do this very traditional, and well-respected, skill more efficiently than humans.
I have some mixed feelings on the Camera Operator occupation's risk at 60%. Operating a camera has long been a baseline skill that many filmmakers must learn to do, especially if you're an aspiring Director or Photographer. Some shots need human guidance and instinct to get the full effect of what the Director wants to convey. And films like Saving Private Ryan (1998) do better with handheld cameras or "guerilla filmmaking" to express a deeper thematic element... (continued below).
However, unbeknownst to many including myself as I'm learning more about it, cameras are becoming increasingly more powerful. Virtual Production is one example and I did a post on virtual production which you should check out.
Famous YouTuber Marques Brownlee, a.k.a MKBHD, did a high-quality video in 2018 showcasing Motorized Precision's KIRA Camera pictured below. This one of a kind machine uses state-of-the-art, NASA-level robotics to shoot video footage in a way that no human could perform. According to Brownlee's video, it can move up to 9 feet per second in any direction while carrying up to 40 pounds 🤯. Also apparently it can be controlled by an Xbox controller, which is pretty cool, but I digress.
As cameras become more powerful, that 60% risk level for camera operators now starts to make sense, but I'd like to believe 40% of that non-risk is based on the fact that operating a camera is also a work of art. Camera movements often mimic human behavior and as an imperfect human being, cameramen make films feel more real.
So while camera operators will likely not become extinct, I do believe there could be fewer assistant camera operators in decades to come.
Safe(r) Occupations
Finally, when we look at the rest of the occupations in those green bars, a familiar pattern appears concerning technicality versus creativity. Actors, video editors, writers, music composers, and set designers all bank on imagination and creative juices to remain valuable, which is a very fundamental distinction between what will get automated and what will not. Interestingly, 37% seems pretty high for actors but then once you realize that they can be digitized, it doesn't seem that crazy. I mean Will Smith fights a clone of HIMSELF in Gemini Man.
Multimedia Artists and Animators at 1.5% is shockingly low considering most of the work is done on a computer using software, but those jobs are very creatively complex. Meanwhile, Makeup Artists command the second-lowest automatable risk level at 1%. Both these numbers just go to show that the social and creative intelligence piece of the Oxford study is so pivotal. Since robots need to be continually taught and retaught creativity, I believe we're far from the day an autonomous robot named Optimus Prime will be sitting on the Director's chair.
Multimedia Artists and Animators at 1.5% is shockingly low considering most of the work is done on a computer using software, but those jobs are very creatively complex. Meanwhile, Makeup Artists command the second-lowest automatable risk level at 1%. Both these numbers just go to show that the social and creative intelligence piece of the Oxford study is so pivotal. Since robots need to be continually taught and retaught creativity, I believe we're far from the day an autonomous robot named Optimus Prime will be sitting on the Director's chair.
Nonetheless, with rising levels of automation, we all need to prepare ourselves for the worst and try to never forget the value we add to our jobs.