In the early 20th century, coal miners would use canaries to detect toxic gases in the mines before they harmed or killed the humans.

The reason being, the anatomy of a canary made them more vulnerable to the gases than humans, so they would provide an early alarm of any serious or deadly danger before the effects spread to the humans working underground.

In Hollywood, actors and writers are striking together for the first time in 60 years; they have now been on strike for more than 100 days.

The use of generative AI is a ‘core issue’ in the strike action.

Could this be an early warning sign of things to come for workers and businesses facing the challenges of AI in the workplace? And what other jobs and industries might be at risk?

Why a strike?

Strike action can take many forms, but in essence it is when workers refuse to perform their usual work, and as a result they don’t get paid.

Dr Betty Frino, an academic at the University of Wollongong lecturing in organisational behaviour, describes it as an “extreme reactive measure to express dissent”.

The actors and writers’ strike includes issues around the use of generative AI in future productions, and the impact that will have on their jobs.

This, Dr Frino says, is a “classic case of machines replacing jobs”, and with a 100-day strike being “absolutely rare in this day and age”, that the “magnitude and impact of a dispute like this is massive”.

Given most of us work not because we want to, but because we have to, it helps to pause for a moment to consider why this group of people would decide the issue is so significant that they would deny themselves an income and livelihood to fight for it.

Reasons for striking

The union representing the striking actors and writers, SAG-AFTRA, states: “Over the last year, generative AI has exploded into the mainstream” and is a “core” subject that “led actors to strike”.

For actors, it’s about whether a studio can own an image of a performer and use it, potentially over and over for ever, with regeneration by AI effectively cutting them out of future roles, work and income.

For writers, it’s whether script content can be generated by AI and diminish their roles or replace their jobs within the creative process.

The AI threat to other workers

There is great concern about the impact of emerging AI technologies. The government discussion paper Safe and responsible AI in Australia, released earlier this year, says that “the speed of innovation in recent AI models are posing new potential risks and creating uncertainty”.

Although much remains uncertain, it is clear that the changes effected by generative AI could have transformative effects on the way we all work, much like the Industrial rRevolution of the 19th century did for manufacturing workers.

The impact of AI has been compared to the Industrial Revolution. Photo: Getty

And while the Industrial Revolution transformed work and cost many jobs over a period of decades, generative AI could dramatically reshape workplaces in just a few short years and may even be left in charge of what its own effects will be, and when.

Supporters of AI, often tech entrepreneurs sitting behind a tech business that is investing in the emerging technology, say that the jobs lost to AI will be replaced by new, as yet unheard-of, jobs.

I asked ChatGPT to help answer the question. Firstly, which jobs will be taken by AI? ChatGPT says jobs that include data entry, customer service, financial analysis and medical diagnosis might be at risk.

And what jobs will be created? ChatGPT speculates that the jobs to emerge will include AI trainer, AI ethicist, AI developer and AI interaction designer.

What next?

Regardless of the individual jobs which may, in theory, be created by the use of AI, the simple fact is that if AI can take over large amounts of work or production that was previously performed by humans, then it is inevitable that job losses will follow.

One question might then be: Just because we can do it, does that mean we should?

Adrian Walsh, a professor of philosophy at the University of New England, who specialises in moral and ethical philosophy, is emphatic: “Clearly it’s going to have massive implications for work.”

AI technology is “parasitic on the work of people, and we’re not going to stop it so there needs to be some consideration of those whose works are being ripped off”, Professor Walsh said.

How can workers respond?

With government regulations likely to take some time to respond to the rapid evolution of AI, there are methods workplaces can employ now to prepare for and manage the onslaught.

Regulation of AI around the world is currently a complex “tapestry” with models ranging from voluntary principles in some countries like Australia and the US, through to enforceable rules in the European Union.

For workplaces, models adopted in Canada and New Zealand which rank the risk of any AI application based on two criteria – the impact of the AI application and if it can be reversed – may be of some use.

Whatever the future might look like, it seems clear that the Hollywood strikes are a warning that the rest of the working world should not ignore, and as Dr Frino says, “the world is watching”.

Rational people are unlikely to deny themselves pay for more than 100 days without what they see as good cause.

Given the impact of AI goes well beyond actors and writers, the best time for workplaces to act and avoid similar clashes is probably now.