Yeah I agree with that assessment, but I think there is much more at play here. However it all really depends on what constitutes the PMC in our assessments. In my reading there are two strains of thought that encompasses the PMC. The first is that the PMC is a true class in the Marxist sense, in that its relationship to the means of production create for it a class position in society that lives in contradiction with the bourgeois and the working class. That it is not subject to the same forces that the working class is subject to, and that their proximity to the means of production as its managers and directors leave it in this privlaged position. They may sell their labor on the market, but are distinct from the working class through their monopolizing of mental labor. That they, by virtue of their status as a class, can and do reproduce their own class heirs able to inherit their class position.

The other strain simply places the PMC on a more aristocratic position then the rest of the working class. Their proximity to the means of production doesn't actually create a privileged class position within society and they are all still subject to the forces of proletarianization as any other petite bourgeois element of society. I do believe they constitute a form of petite bourgeois since in many cases these positions come with them capital benefits like stock options, advanced retirement funds etc. They can be highly paid but also compensated in ways that other members of the working class cannot. Buy also, its clear that the PMC is being eroded as its members are able to enter Into the capitalist class, or fall down the ladder through proletarianization.

So, while I think its true that the PMC is a over stuffed and over paid group of the working class I think the impact that "AI" has on their class position isn't just in the inflation of their wage, but also truly a threat to their actual labor, or more accurately the light that illuminates the true lack of productivity they actually create, since most of the PMC is comprised of people directing and bossing those who implement and execute the productive process. Regardless of what the "real" productivity increases (if any) that AI engenders, I think there are some roles which will be impacted in the long term as the current capabilities become more and more accessible. The interjection of Chinese open source AI gives the capitalists an out from this trend to some degree. It allows them to utilize whatever labor replacing power they perceive AI to have, but outside the circuit that currently maintains this bubble. Instead of paying into this Open AI -> NVIDIA -> Data Center -> Power Generation circuit, they can deploy open models at their scale through their own infrastructure.

This drastically changes the calculation of the cost to productivity ratio that simply doesn't make sense in the current model. While it doesn't represent a real dataset, I know of a company that adopted "AI" on the backs of a MASSIVE reduction in C Suite roles. Should a company in that position find themselves in sticker shock after the first usage pricing bill hits the finance department, I can imagine someone suggesting they either A) move to a Chinese model or B) hosting their own Chinese model in house, instead of retreating and hiring back the C Suite employees who they fired.

Either would require a lower wage worker to effectively implement and manage this transition or implementation which is still cheaper then paying for the wage and benefits of the C Suites. I'm this reality, even if the "gains" of productivity are fictitious, the company still created a huge net downturn in wage spending and gets to continue this insane "AI" play for another quarter. However, I don't think this will result in a lower wage for the PMC overall, since if you cut half of that strata from your company as the one I know did, you can afford to pay the remaining C Suites their same wage and benefits. What it actually represents is a reduction in the "necessary" number of actual managers in any one organization. Should that happen it could reduce the overall "socially necessary labor time" for the given product or service to be produced. SNLT is the total of all labor time it takes to create a thing, if you reduce the number of managers and still manage to produce the same volume of goods/services then that represents a reduction in SNLT.

Let's imagine for a moment (and its likely to not be imaginary) that AI is actually a null impact on productivity. If the total of PMC employed is reduced even by say 2% "because of AI", but the productive output isn't impacted in any way, then it means that 2% of the PMC existed in a position where they contributed nothing to the productive process, since, in this situation AI also contributes nothing. These productivity "gains" can be attributed to "AI", even if it too provided nothing. "We implemented AI in our processes to reduce the overall necessary staff, and it resulted in sustained output".

In this way the AI narrative provides ideological cover, presenting a discipline of capital as a technological inevitability. It also allows firms to claim increased “efficiency” to shareholders while the actual productive base remains unchanged. What is left over would be those PMC most willing to play along with this kind of kabuki performance in order to maintain their status in the hierarchy.

I think its correct to identify that these wages are inflated. It represents the kind of surplus generated by monopoly capital. At some point this surplus can't be reinvested and spills over into the more unproductive sides of the labor process. I think the capitalist understands that these wages are necessary to entice people to seek a seat at the PMC table though. Should the wages drop, then the whole alure of this position in the hierarch is dispelled, but, if you can mask the reduction in PMC labor as some kind of technology inevitability then you get to keep the prestige of the PMC, and if anything make the club more exclusive and more aligned with the goals of capital.