The real story behind Netflix's $900,000 AI job (2024)

Welcome toTomTalks, where#AInews meets#innovationPOV.

Want to be a guest on a video podcast for TomTalks?Use this form.

It's the middle of the week again – time to pull on a couple of threads in AI news, and nowhere better to start than the supposed $900,000 "AI job" that Netflix is currently being raked over the coals for advertising.

What's the real story here? It's not about money or Netflix or even AI, although they're a part of it. It's about transformation, loss, growing pains, and how these contribute to a greater good that's both real and impossible to quantify.

So, let's start with some facts:

The posting is for a product manager that would help Netflix develop and steer its machine-learning projects and strategy. To be clear,the job is real. The $900,000 is a bit misleading.

"But Tom, the job postingliterally says$900,000!"

Yes, but the context is crucial. Here's the actual wording:

Emphasis added to help make my point, which is – even if there was a candidate that Netflix deemed worthy of the range's top end, that person still isn't going to make $900,000. They will make substantially less, with the remainder made up of benefits, bonuses, stock options, or the like.

But going by headlines and comments, the general uproar seems to be less about the money, and more about the fact that it's an AI-related job. This is important because the currentwriters'andactors' strikes, while superficially about pay and working conditions, are more deeply driven by the threat of AI disruption in the entertainment industry.

It's useful to remember that not all writers and actors – just like not all executives – have the same opinions or goals. Undoubtedly, some would prefer there was no strike happening at all, and surely thousands of them, if not nearly all, have mixed feelings on the matter, and that goes double for how they perceive and think about AI.

The simplified media narrative, however, is "entertainment workers vs the industry," with actors and writers being the undervalued underdogs, and goliaths like Netflix wielding AI as a weapon.

I mean, howdareNetflix invest in its future by prioritizing the most revolutionary technology of today, right?

Please don't get me wrong. I think compensation should be fair, and working conditions should be as good as possible, regardless of what job we're talking about. And if striking accomplishes those things, I'm fully on board.

What I'm not on board with is the idea that entertainment companies should tone down their pursuit of AI innovation just so they can focus on propping up the careers of people that, eventually, AI might be able to replace. It frankly doesn't make business sense.

I sympathize greatly, but I also know that when innovation happens, it hurts, and it's hard. People make sacrifices and have things taken away. Sometimes they lose their jobs or their lifestyles or see them change dramatically. This has always been a consequence of innovation, from the advent of agriculture to the onset of the digital commerce era and in hundreds of instances in between and since. The bottom line is that innovation often comes with harsh consequences.

But would we be better off without it? I don't think so. I don't buy the "humans are a blight on the planet" or "modern society is a disease" lines. I believe innovation has made us smarter, stronger, kinder, and better. Not to mention, for any job lost, some new one will be created.

Of course, the positive outcomes of innovation aren't guaranteed; they require conscious decisions and structures. Like wild stallions brought onto a ranch, they require corralling and taming in order to be useful while causing minimal chaos.

Generally, I think people know and accept this innovation-consequence relationship, because they've seen it play out before. But when it happens to them personally, it feels a little – or a lot – different. And also, it's hard to feel safe or be rational standing in the corral with that wild stallion running around kicking up a storm of dust.

⚫⚫⚫

Ironically, Netflix's drive for innovation, and the streaming industry it helped to enable, has created countless new opportunities for actors and writers. They've helped broaden the horizons of storytelling, producing diverse and globally-influential content. While AI might threaten some aspects of that industry, it also promises novel ways of creating and sharing stories, potentially expanding the scope of work for creatives.

The real story isn't one of hypocrisy, it's one of growth and new frontiers. Netflix's strategy isn't "ghoulish," it's logical and thought-out. Yes, $900,000 (if that were the actual salary being advertised) would give stability to a handful of actors or writers and their families. But if the company succeeds in the long term, a lot more than a handful will benefit.

On that note, the quote of the week is from Pablo Picasso, who said:

💥 Crazy fact of the week:

In keeping with the theme, here's a mind-blowing streaming stat:

Netflix usage accounts for approximately15%of all internet traffic!

(That's held true from at least2018to2023.)

AI and its influence are growing exponentially, creating a world filled with deep opportunities and even deeper unknowns. TomTalks🎤 is a weekly exploration of the benefits, risks, and costs of AI adoption, featuring brief but crucial conversations with AI experts and global business leaders. Hosted by award-winning innovation expert Tom Popomaronis.

Tom is Co-Founder & President ofMassive Alliance– a thought leadership and ghostwriting agency that sets industry standards by serving a diverse client base, from high-ranking executives in Fortune 100 companies and global 2000 organizations to dynamic leaders in startups and small businesses. As we evolve, we're moving towards being a technology-centric business, developing an innovative AI-driven Language Model that serves as a digital memory bank for our executives, propelling us into new territories of innovation and efficiency.