[HN Gopher] The exploited labor behind artificial intelligence (... ___________________________________________________________________ The exploited labor behind artificial intelligence (2022) Author : zhte415 Score : 145 points Date : 2023-01-20 16:35 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.noemamag.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.noemamag.com) | prvc wrote: | >The public's understanding of artificial intelligence (AI) is | largely shaped by pop culture | | First clause of first sentence falsely posits that the "public" | has a single mind, and claims the authors know the contents of | this mind and what causes it to acquire these contents. It also | adopts a false pose of authority and and understanding superior | to that of the (nonexistent) mind of the public. It was nice of | the authors to disqualify themselves from offering worthy ideas | on the topic of AI so early in the article. | bostonwalker wrote: | Do you really believe that we cannot make generalizations about | the layperson's understanding of AI? Unless you have a related | degree in math, statistics, engineering, or comp. sci, i.e. a | tiny minority of people, it's probably true that you get your | understanding from pop culture. | prvc wrote: | >Do you really believe that we cannot make generalizations | about the layperson's understanding of AI? | | I never said anything like that. | | Another point: They also continually conflate "AI", deep | learning, and mechanical-turk style crowdsourcing. | Xelynega wrote: | Why are you discrediting the authors points based off of a | fluff sentence in the introductory paragraph? Typically the | arguments themselves are evaluated based on their own merit. | | The "popular" in pop culture and the "public" in publics | understanding are referring to the same thing, so I don't | understand your confusion. The only thing that's really being | implied by the sentence is that scientific understanding | doesn't dominate the public understanding of artificial | intelligence as much as pop culture does. | ucha wrote: | As a third-worlder I welcome these jobs. They lower unemployment, | raise average salaries, haggling power, increase the country's | foreign currency reserves... Our minimum wage is similar to | Kenya's and $1.46/hour after tax is way above the around 80c | minimum. | | It could make sense from an environmental perspective to produce | and consume locally but for a job like this, the only reason to | use US nationals would be to create local jobs. | [deleted] | labrador wrote: | I'd like to see a The Onion story about a third world person | worried that the computer games they play are written by young | exploited programmers in first world countries | | Edit: I asked ChatGPT to write it for me: | | Write me a story in the style of The Onion about a third world | kid who worries the he is exploiting the young programmers in | first world countries who make the games he plays | | Headline: | | Third World Child Struggles with Guilt over Exploiting First | World Game Developers | | Story: | | In a small village in a developing country, a young boy named | Ahmed sat huddled over his tablet, playing the latest mobile | game. As he tapped away at the virtual farm, building and | expanding his virtual empire, a feeling of guilt began to gnaw | at him. | | Ahmed couldn't shake the feeling that the game he was enjoying | so much was built on the backs of exploited programmers in | first world countries. He knew that the developers of the game | were likely working long hours for low pay, all so that he, a | third world child, could have a few moments of entertainment. | | As the guilt grew stronger, Ahmed tried to put the game down, | but found himself unable to resist its allure. He knew that he | was complicit in the exploitation of his fellow human beings, | but he couldn't bring himself to stop playing. | | "I know it's wrong, but I just can't help it," Ahmed said, | tears streaming down his face. "I wish there was a way to enjoy | the game without feeling guilty." | | As the sun set over Ahmed's village, the young boy made a | silent vow to do whatever it takes to make sure that the game | developers are treated fairly and compensated for their hard | work. He knew it wouldn't be easy, but he was determined to | make a difference, even if it meant sacrificing his own | enjoyment of the game." | | Ahmed's story is a reminder that in today's globalized world, | the actions of one person can have a ripple effect that extends | far beyond their immediate surroundings. While it may be easy | to enjoy the latest mobile game or app, it's important to | remember that behind every pixel is a team of hardworking | individuals who deserve fair treatment and compensation for | their labor. | yamazakiwi wrote: | This is also reminiscent of that German ad about raising | money for Americans in poverty. | [deleted] | frontman1988 wrote: | Hell yeah even I would gladly take such a job. 120 rupees an | hour is a good deal in such tough times where it's almost | impossible to find a work from home job that isn't an outright | scam. Last week I sat for 4 hours solving a crazy competitive | programming question just to get an interview call. It's rough | out there. If Anybody knows where to apply for these data | labelling jobs please tell me. | TACIXAT wrote: | I'm building something right now that is a reverse bidding | platform for image acquisition and labeling (company makes a | solicitation, workers bid) where you get paid per accepted | image and label. It will open to US labor first and might | take up to a year to expand to India (assuming you're there). | | If you want to be an early India user (paid) put an email in | your bio and I'll get in touch. If you can program though | data labeling might not be the best use of your time. | dekhn wrote: | the "guilt-industrial complex" | 0xbadc0de5 wrote: | They'd rather see poor people earn no money than see them earn | anything below what their own preconceptions have labelled a | fair wage. It seems that for a lot of people, it's not about | building things, it's about tearing things down. The psychology | appears akin to the childhood bully who, unable to build their | own, goes around kicking over other children's sandcastles, | then feels smugly content with their "accomplishment"... not | recognising all they've done is ruin others work without | contributing anything of value to the world. | phailhaus wrote: | OK, so then we should repeal labor laws and allow employers | to abuse their employees? The problem is that your tired | analogy has no nuance: all criticism is considered | "bullying". We should simply allow everyone to do anything | they want? Clearly that's absurd, so the sandcastle analogy | doesn't work. | | Why not just argue the criticism on its merits, rather than | complaining that criticism shouldn't be allowed at all? | cscurmudgeon wrote: | So all off shoring is labor abuse? TIL | ripe wrote: | I don't know why you're being downvoted. Your point is | valid. Many arguments can be made against the article's | critique, but the analogy used by the comment above yours | is rejecting the very idea that these companies can be | criticized at all. | Der_Einzige wrote: | They call it "critical theory" instead of "constructive | theory" for a reason. | | It takes no skill to critique. | Xelynega wrote: | I think your "building" and "tearing down" analogy is | actually spot on. | | We have a whole group of people who are so concerned with | what's already built and building more and more onto it, that | any attempt to point out where they went wrong in the | foundation is met with criticisms like "all you people want | to do is tear things down" and "well if your foundation is so | good then why haven't you built as much as us". | | Look at the whole phenomenon of critical theories, especially | critical race theory. People were so enraged by the prospect | of having the foundations questioned that the actual | criticisms were less important. | [deleted] | somedude895 wrote: | This article is all over the place. I see the issue with the work | being traumatizing, but apart from that, the points the article | makes are just awful. | | > labor exploitation is not central to the discourse surrounding | the ethical development and deployment of AI systems | | Yes, because workers' rights and AI Ethics are two separate | issues. It seems the author is using the fact that AI ethics is a | thing as a "gotcha" against AI companies, because they treat | their workers unethically according to them. | | > In this article, we [...] argue that supporting transnational | worker organizing efforts should be a priority in discussions | pertaining to AI ethics. | | And even if you shoved workers rights into AI ethics; How do you | organize labor for a job where there's an unlimited pool of | people worldwide who would take the job in an instant with | minimal training required most likely, making pretty much the | whole workforce instantly replaceable? | | > These corporations know that increased worker power would slow | down their march toward proliferating "AI" systems requiring vast | amounts of data, deployed without adequately studying and | mitigating their harms. | | > If corporations are not allowed to exploit labor from Kenya to | the U.S., for example, they will not be able to proliferate | harmful technologies as quickly -- their market calculations | would simply dissuade them from doing so. | | Here it's suddenly about actual AI ethics again with the idea | that progress needs to be artificially slowed down in order to | ensure ethical implementation. Increasing the "unethically low" | data labeling wages has the added benefit of slowing down the | "unethical" development of AI. | | > Talk of sentient machines only distracts us from holding them | accountable for the exploitative labor practices that power the | "AI" industry. | | It really just looks like a weird ramble where the author picked | a popular topic and then grasped at straws to draw lines to their | political agenda with some luddism sprinkled on top. | AlbertCory wrote: | > But around 15 years ago, before the proliferation of gig work, | deep learning systems were considered merely an academic | curiosity, confined to a few interested researchers. | | Um, no. Google was using machine learning more than 15 years ago, | notably in the SmartASS system that predicts whether someone will | click on an ad [1]. I got my cousin Missy a gig (at $15 an hour) | rating ads and search results. | | This story is hardly a claim of humane treatment of gig workers, | I should note. I intervened and got her treated fairly. | | > Companies make sure to hire people from poor and underserved | communities, such as refugees, incarcerated people and others | with few job options, often hiring them through third party firms | as contractors rather than as full time employees. | | Citations, please. A rater who is many standard deviations away | from the mean is extremely _undesirable_. You want their | judgments to be representative of the population. | | If you want to design something that _appeals_ to Americans, you | want American raters. Since the US is by far the largest consumer | of Internet services, it stands to reason most raters of | "quality" will need to be from the US. | | If you just want to know if an image contains objectionable | content, then yes, you could use Third World employees. | | [1] https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/working-at-google-ads | tristor wrote: | These "journalists" see someone training image classifiers | using Mechanical Turk, which awards a wage in excess of the | local economy in the third world, and imagine to themselves | this is how all models get trained because they don't | understand ML, they don't understand market segmentation, and | generally don't understand technology or business. | YeGoblynQueenne wrote: | >> they don't understand ML | | Please don't say that, it is upsetting that this false | assumption thrown around so carelessly. At least check the | authors' profiles, say on Wikipedia, if you want to know how | much they understand. | Xelynega wrote: | I don't see what there is to understand. | | Any 'ai' model right now requires classified data to train. | It takes human work to classify data. Human work is cheaper | in some places than others, so companies in expensive places | exploit the situation of poorer places to lower their | operating costs. | | The wage size compared to the local economy doesn't really | matter, since the exploitation comes from the difference in | costs between the local economy and the local economy of the | company. | | In your reality, how is the data getting classified if not by | people whose situation is being exploited? | tristor wrote: | > It takes human work to classify data. Human work is | cheaper in some places than others, so companies in | expensive places exploit the situation of poorer places to | lower their operating costs. | | 1. Humans are not fungible in this way, as much as some | people wish that they were. The ML models we built in my | workplace were fed classified data that was built using | some of the most expensive labor in the company, because of | the highly specialized nature of the model. It would have | been impossible to train using Mechanical Turk. | | 2. Taking money from wealthy countries and putting it into | the economy of poor countries by paying an outsized local | wage in the poor country that is cheap in the wealthy | country, thus lifting up the poor country, is a very | interesting way to classify "exploitation" (see: Asia and | Eastern Europe). | | > In your reality, how is the data getting classified if | not by people whose situation is being exploited? | | In your reality, apparently it's only acceptable for a | company that would pay a First World worker $20/hr to do | classification to also pay a Third World worker $20/hr to | do classification, rather than $2/hr, which is an outsized | compensation in a local market where people generally get | $2/DAY, rather than per hour. | | In my reality, BILLIONS of people have been lifted out of | abject poverty by foreign investment dollars that | arbitraged labor costs, to massively improve the economic | situation and quality of life of those foreign workers. | | Weirdly, my reality aligns with actual facts. | cscurmudgeon wrote: | How is that exploitation? | Xelynega wrote: | Why don't US companies pay foreign workers US wages? The | answer I come up with is that they chose to hire workers | in disadvantaged situations(relative to opportunity and | local labour laws) to reduce operating costs. | | To me, using people in disadvantaged situations to reduce | your operating costs is inherently exploitative. | tristor wrote: | > Why don't US companies pay foreign workers US wages? | | Why doesn't money grow on trees? Why does inflation | exist? Why are some nations wealthy and other nations | poor? Why are some nations at different points in their | economic, social, civil, and technological development? | Why is the sky blue? | | Are you trolling or do you seriously not understand how | fancifully inane this question is? | cscurmudgeon wrote: | Nobody is being forced to work for those companies. Is | there any actual evidence of exploitation? If so, are the | governments complicit in not acting against them? | [deleted] | oh_sigh wrote: | Let's say this job was not available for $1.46 an hour after tax. | Are those potential employees better off or worse off? | ClumsyPilot wrote: | lets say profits were making their way down the chain - would | the economy be better off or worse off? | somedude895 wrote: | There's a provider in Kenya, who offers these services at a | certain rate. OpenAI isn't going go pay them more and | instruct them to pass the money on to the workers. They're | businesses, not charities. | | How are so many comments in this thread so far detached from | the real world? | oh_sigh wrote: | Probably better. See? I answered your question. Not sure why | it is so hard to answer mine. | guerrilla wrote: | because yours is a manipulative false dichotomy as | demonstrated by the second question. | oh_sigh wrote: | How much do you think ML trainers previously getting paid | $1.46/hr would get paid if the company distributed 100% | of their profits to their employees? | hackinthebochs wrote: | Stated more realistically, what will those people do in | the mean time while we all wait for the economic | structure of the world to reorient itself towards profit | sharing? How long are they expected to wait? | guerrilla wrote: | The economic structure doesn't need to change for these | companies to act as if it had, nor for these people to | take these jobs if neither thing happens. All three | things can be true at the same time. As I said, it was a | false dichotomy. That's key to understanding the | situation. | hackinthebochs wrote: | And how do you expect to effect such a change? Is it just | a matter of generating sufficient outrage in your mind? | Why should these people be forced to wait and suffer | while you and your ilk write think pieces about silicon | valley? | | This is the problem with ideas like yours, there is no | practical plan on offer to create the reality you are | advocating for. Yet, you expect these people who are | suffering _right now_ to just sit tight. Its narcissism. | Xelynega wrote: | Let's say we restructure global labour relations such that | people arent getting paid a fraction of their worth because of | where they were born or choose to live. | | You know, since we're dealing in hypotheticals. | arcticbull wrote: | They would likely be better off in the long term as time spent | on this kind of menial labor represents a massive opportunity | cost. | oh_sigh wrote: | What do you think the employees would be doing if they didn't | take this job? | hbrn wrote: | > They would likely be better off in the long term | | It's quite a dangerous mindset to think that taking freedom | away from other people is a good thing _because you know | better_. | | In some cases you will be correct. In others, millions will | die. | [deleted] | friend_and_foe wrote: | So open AI decides to gimp their creation and prevent it from | returning certain responses because _some people_ will screech | about those responses, and they decide to hire people on other | countries to do it, and now we see articles coming out about | exploitative labor practices... | | Give these crybabies what they claim to want: fire all those | Kenyans and stop gimping chatgpt under the guise of not wanting | to use exploitative labor practices. Rub their faces in it. You | can't win with these people, don't even try. | | And as a little bonus for the crybabies, when are you going to | realize you're tools being used in corporate warfare? You think | it's a coincidence that these articles are being written about an | up and coming company running circles around the established big | boys? Do you like being a tool? | optimalsolver wrote: | >crybabies | | Ironic comment. | | >Rub their faces in it | | None of that's gonna happen. Deal with it, lol. | jsimzeroone wrote: | Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age" has a fake AI "character" -- | a book that appears to be AI but is really operated by low-paid | humans in 3rd world countries (reminiscent of the Mechanical | Turk, a supposed chess playing automaton that actually contained | a small person). | | There's an old observation from Arthur C. Clarke, that | sufficiently advanced technology seems like magic. One thing that | learning how magic tricks are performed taught me is that | magicians typically do their fake magic by doing an unreasonable | amount of work behind the scenes -- "magic" in the real world is | often just doing a large amount of work that people don't realize | is happening. | | Given all that it seems appropriate that the new "real world | magic" -- ML systems imitating intelligence -- really rest on a | lot of hidden work by human beings. Just like magical devices | like iPhones exist due to a lot of surprisingly cheap labor. | Imagining otherwise is like imagining that the delicious food | from a 3-star kitchen just appears from the chef's mind, without | the help of all of the low-paid kitchen workers, farm workers, | etc. that in reality do most of the work. | daniel-cussen wrote: | [dead] | jjcon wrote: | Not as a rule though - so many ML systems are utilizing data | that is streaming in from passive sensors or transactional | streams and is not human curated at all. The human aspect isn't | an intrinsic property of ML or even these algorithms only | particular applications (and I would guess a minority of | applications too). | | Given that, it seems to be a clear miss to apply that logic | generally. I have to believe it most likely stems from a lack | of basic understanding and competence on the authors part. | YeGoblynQueenne wrote: | >> I have to believe it most likely stems from a lack of | basic understanding and competence on the authors part. | | That is unlikely, given that one of the authors is Timint | Gebru. I'm quoting below select passages from her wikipedia | page indicating her background: | | _In 2001, Gebru was accepted at Stanford University.[2][5] | There she earned her Bachelor of Science and Master of | Science degrees in electrical engineering[8] and her PhD in | computer vision[9] in 2017.[10] Gebru was advised during her | PhD program by Fei-Fei Li.[10]_ | | _Gebru presented her doctoral research at the 2017 LDV | Capital Vision Summit competition, where computer vision | scientists present their work to members of industry and | venture capitalists. Gebru won the competition, starting a | series of collaborations with other entrepreneurs and | investors.[11][12]_ | | _Gebru joined Apple as an intern while at Stanford, working | in their hardware division making circuitry for audio | components, and was offered a full-time position the | following year. Of her work as an audio engineer, her manager | told Wired she was "fearless," and well-liked by her | colleagues_ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timnit_Gebru | jjcon wrote: | I didn't say they were uneducated but an audio hardware | engineer does not imply a good working knowledge of | industry trends in ML applications. | | Regardless, my point still stands, they completely ignore | (willingly or ignorantly) that human labeled data is not | intrinsic to ML or even the algorithms themselves and in | all likelihood is a small minority of datasets used by | modern ML applications. To then apply that critique | generally to ML shows ignorance and a misunderstanding of | the ecosystem. | YeGoblynQueenne wrote: | Gebru is not an audio hardware engineer. I call your | attention to this passage I quoted above: | | _Gebru presented her doctoral research at the 2017 LDV | Capital Vision Summit competition, where computer vision | scientists present their work to members of industry and | venture capitalists. Gebru won the competition, starting | a series of collaborations with other entrepreneurs and | investors.[11][12]_ | | And to the fact that she got her PhD in computer vision, | i.e. the main area of AI research that the article seems | to be criticising. | jjcon wrote: | Her work experience is as an audio engineer - but again | it doesn't matter what her credentials are, she is wrong | regardless and you are ignoring my whole point. She shows | her ignorance of the subject matter (again willingly or | not) when she applies her critique generally at Ml and | not just at these specific applications - not sure how | many times I need to say that. | YeGoblynQueenne wrote: | >> Her work experience is as an audio engineer | | Her PhD research is in computer vision and she and her | co-authors are writing mainly about computer vision, but | you spoke of "a lack of basic understanding and | competence on the authors part". That is clearly | incorrect and I don't understand what saying the same | thing many times will change about that. | jjcon wrote: | Computer Vision is a domain and is not equivalent to | machine learning. They overlap yes, but not necessary. | Again though you have completely ignored my point again | and again. The authors ignorantly conflate specific | applications of ML with the entire industry. That shows a | lack of competence in this area. | bloodyplonker22 wrote: | You perfectly illustrate the problem with typical western | thinking. The workers you refer to may be low paid when | compared to the US and other western countries, but they are | highly paid in their respective countries. A lot of the time, | the jobs (ie: iPhone assembly, AI related) are highly sought | after because they are a great alternative to the other jobs | that the workers with their skill set can get. It is also a | great way to get a step up the job ladder for them and new | acquire skills. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > A lot of the time, the jobs (ie: iPhone assembly, AI | related) are highly sought after | | This description alsp applies to mining toxic substances by | hand and high-end prostitution. | | The artisan cobalt-mining by hand is relatively popular, and | kills you withing 10 years. It is not difficult to explot | desperate people. I dont think we should be whitewashing it | danielmarkbruce wrote: | The woman who started Sama (mentioned in the article) | explicitly started the company to help people in those | countries. Her entire life appears to have been directed | toward helping people in Africa, she had a history of it. | She wasn't there to exploit people. | colpabar wrote: | But it _is_ exploitation though, right? If a bunch of | people in a western company say "well, we could just | hire people in africa because that would _significantly_ | reduce our costs, " isn't that an exploitation of cheap | labor in africa? | jeremyjh wrote: | Is it exploitation to buy things from poor people? | Dalewyn wrote: | All business is about exploiting someone somewhere for | your benefit, no exceptions. The only question is whether | that exploitation is within tolerable limits. | yesenadam wrote: | > All business is about exploiting someone somewhere for | your benefit, no exceptions. | | Where did you learn that? I don't think it's at all true. | It seems maybe you have a no-true-scotsman definition of | 'exploited', so that no evidence against your claim would | change your mind. | | Picture a baker, who makes bread for people, who get | bread, the baker gets money. Where is the necessary | exploitation? I can't imagine where your confidence - "no | exceptions" comes from. There are no win-win exchanges in | the world, and none even possible? I'm not a huge fan of | capitalism but that seems absurd. | Dalewyn wrote: | The baker is exploiting his customers' need/want for | bread. The customers are exploiting the baker's need/want | for money. | | Another way to describe business is that all business is | about ripping someone off without pissing them off (and | ideally making them happy). Middlemen who make their | profit off margins are the most obvious example, but as I | said this applies to all forms of business. | | I reiterate: All business is about exploiting someone | somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions. | yesenadam wrote: | I think you are using the word "exploit" in a different | way than it is usually used, leading most people to | misunderstand you. Or as a sibling comment suggests, the | word has two meanings, and your argument uses | equivocation (two different meanings in two different | places) to achieve an apparently thick, substantial | conclusion out of nothing. | Dalewyn wrote: | Let me rephrase it using simpler language, then: | | All business is about taking advantage of someone | somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions. | | The baker is taking advantage of his customers' need/want | for bread. The customers are taking advantage of the | baker's need/want for money. | ben_w wrote: | "Exploitation" has at least two (IMO very different) | meanings. | | Even though most of the time "exploiting an opportunity" | is neutral and "exploiting our workers" is either a scam | or abuse, I have seen some texts that used the word in | the same sense for both cases. | colpabar wrote: | it's communist nonsense that's used to justify the idea | that walking dogs for ~25 hours a week is just too much. | danielmarkbruce wrote: | I guess it depends on your definition of "exploit". | | If OpenAI had to pay more, they would have gone with | another option. It's challenging to work across time | zones, across cultures, across language barriers. Working | with folks in Reno, NV or somewhere in the southern | states of the US would have been the choice for OpenAI at | a much higher price. | | It's a competitive world. On the surface the Sama founder | knew that and realized the options were higher wages for | these folks in Africa, or none. The choice of _even | higher_ wasn 't actually on the table. | boeingUH60 wrote: | You mean the same Sama that charged OpenAI $12.50 per | hour for a contract and paid their African contractors $2 | or less an hour? | | https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/ | bumby wrote: | I think your example explains why the article is a | potentially gray area of exploitation. | | I think it's clear exploitation when you offer someone | employment that adversely impacts their rights. So artisan | cobalt-mining is exploitative, because of it's health | effects, would go against the UN's definition of "the right | to work in just and favourable conditions"[1]. However, I'm | not sure what, if any, rights are being compromised by the | topic in the article. Maybe there's a case that it's unjust | because of the asymmetry in the value created and payment. | If there are some rights abuses, then it becomes a clearly | exploitative endeavor. | | [1] https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights | 8note wrote: | This is another common problem with tropical western thinking | -- forgetting the historical context. Colonialism happened, | and the people are so poor and desperate now because of | things the west did in the past. | miguelazo wrote: | This does explain a lot of the difference in development, | especially in very poor countries. And this isn't just a | result of "old", traditional colonialism, but imperialism | in the form of meddling in their internal politics. | Guatemala is a great example, having had its democracy | destroyed by Allen Dulles and his CIA in the 1950s. But you | can also take a more recent example like the 2009 coup in | Honduras, backed by Hillary Clinton. | worik wrote: | As someone who does not live in the USA Iam very glad H | Clinton did not become president | | Impossible to know but I expect she would not have stayed | out of the Syrian war. | | It was she who was largely responsible for the debacle in | Lybia | | So Karen on using all that power and such a short term | thinker | | Trump was a catastrophe for you in the USA but not really | for us. | | Please elect an isolationist.... | wolverine876 wrote: | Exploitation involves, by definition, giving the exploited | something they need. If you don't have food, and someone | gives you food in return for slave labor, they are exploiting | you. | josephg wrote: | If people in a poor country are offered jobs in a factory, | and they prefer those jobs over subsistence farming (since | the conditions are better and pay is better), who exactly | is worse off as a result? Sounds like a profitable trade to | me given both parties walk away happy. | | Outsourced factory jobs are the mechanism by which | previously poor countries like Taiwan and China (in many | ways) have been pulled out of poverty. The process is | happening before our eyes in Vietnam right now. | | Do you think you're doing poor people a favour by denying | them well paid jobs? Should we do the same in the west, and | have companies fire all our poorest employees? | | I can hardly think of a more cruel policy. | nerdponx wrote: | > a book that appears to be AI but is really operated by low- | paid humans in 3rd world countries | | I've seen this in real life before, no need for a work of | fiction. | brudgers wrote: | _Diamond Age_ was first published in 1995. | | I don't think I am out on an intellectual limb believing very | very few people would have seen an AI written book back then. | simonebrunozzi wrote: | > Mechanical Turk | | And also inspiration for Amazon's Mechanical Turk. [0] | | [0]: https://www.mturk.com/ | charlieyu1 wrote: | Reminds me of that "virtual youtubers" are actually humans | behind the skin | sfritz wrote: | In Diamond Age the book is being performed by a skilled actor | who is voicing many characters using a script entirely | generated by the AI. | andrepd wrote: | >reminiscent of the Mechanical Turk, a supposed chess playing | automaton that actually contained a small person | | Reminiscent of the Amazon Mechanical Turk, a current real-life | example of exactly they. | krisoft wrote: | > a book that appears to be AI but is really operated by low- | paid humans in 3rd world countries | | Uhm actually :) the AI definietly writes the text itself, and | takes care of Nell, and senses the environment around itself, | but for plot reasons it can't do voice synthesis. So it employs | humans to read up the words. At least until Nell learns to | read. | | So it is not just appears, but it is in fact an AI, with a | veneer of human voice on it. | Closi wrote: | If by "exploit" you mean "offer a clear and optional exchange of | money for labour in return" then yes, I guess people were | explotied here. | | As per everyone in employment. | idontpost wrote: | [dead] | subradios wrote: | The industrial revolution moved 90% of workers out of farming, | yes 90% of employment in 1870 was agricultural, literally | producing calories. | | We sometimes mourn for this in the form of back to the land | pastoralism, but quality of life empirics suggest the industrial | revolution was a benefit anyway. | | Instead of luddism, we should try to find ways that the coming | apocalypse of white collar knowledge work can benefit humanity as | a whole, and learn from our mistakes in the rust belt. | fnordpiglet wrote: | I think the next level is post scarcity. In a post scarcity | world maybe we don't labor and toil to live because it's | unnecessary to tie home, health, food, and life necessities to | labor if our labor isn't useful. Maybe life becomes about | something other than working to live and living to work. Maybe | tying labor to life necessities was necessary given scarcity of | labor, but when labor scales independently of people we need a | new way of allocating resources. | VLM wrote: | Why do contemporary discussions of post scarcity always | require something in the future rather than appearing in the | past due to "the assembly line" or "agriculture"? | | Surely in the vast universe of past human discovery it seems | likely if post-scarcity were possible in any form, that we'd | have already discovered what will initiate post-scarcity so | it should be here now... and it seems unlikely that any | individual invention in the future will kick it off if none | of the past inventions did. | fnordpiglet wrote: | Because productivity still scaled linearly with consuming | humans, even if the constants improved. AI and other | advances offer a potential for nearly autonomous | productivity allow for productivity that scales | independently of available labor. | | Additionally I would say that each advance brought us | closer to post scarcity. We have close to eliminated | extreme poverty globally. Compared to hunter gatherer | society's we already live post scarcity. | | Finally we may very well be post scarcity, but the notion | of nobility in work and morality of labor means we can't | yet seriously consider decoupling work from life | necessities. At some point there won't be enough bullshit | jobs left to justify pretending people need to labor to | eat, and society will either collapse or we will move | beyond work to live. | | I would posit however the invention left undone is the one | we use humans for now. Their ability to reason, make | independent decisions, synthesize new ideas in any | situation, learn new and different skills, interacting with | a complex field of visual, auditory, and sensory stimulus | effectively towards a goal, etc. That's why we research AI. | If our tools have that, then our tools don't need us. If | our tools don't need us, we don't have to do the work. If | we don't have to do the work, there is no scarcity because | work scales independent of us. | | There are also other inventions we know of but haven't | perfected that help here. Efficient fusion is one. With | that energy is cheap and plentiful and presumably clean. | Energy is the ability to do work. With artificial minds | that can produce minds that can in turn produce minds, | fueled with plentiful energy, what's left? | | So I disagree that we've invented everything that might be | useful, or that what hasn't yet been invented won't lead to | improved productivity to the point that human labor is | redundant and all human needs can be met without it. | thedorkknight wrote: | Would be lovely if there was actually any movement to avert the | employment apocalypse. So far all I see is talk, and I have no | idea how to do anything beyond that myself | unity1001 wrote: | > We sometimes mourn for this in the form of back to the land | pastoralism, but quality of life empirics suggest the | industrial revolution was a benefit anyway. | | Nope. That 'moved workforce' started living in industrial slums | and dying at a ripe old age of ~40 instead of living until | their late 60s. | | http://www.filmsforaction.org/news/recovered_economic_histor... | cornel_io wrote: | And now the average worldwide lifespan is 72, higher if you | look at countries that are fully industrialized. | | Transitions suck for the people left behind, but that doesn't | mean that progress is bad, it can really help people overall. | tristor wrote: | That link is unhinged. It considers people to be self- | sufficient on mere subsistence. A society which creates | collective incentives towards collaboration and away from | violent domination, creating wealth and value in excess of | subsistence, and opening up the massive quality of life | increase to all, is a significant departure in a positive | direction from mere subsistence for an agrarian peasant that | survives at the whim of people who could brutally and | violently take from them. | | That has to be the most hilariously and sadly unhinged | reading and retelling of history I have ever seen. A | wonderful example of lying with truths. The author seems to | be part of a communist online writer collective, I suppose | that should be unsurprising given the subject matter. Commies | are wild. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > collaboration and away from violent domination | | Working in an iron foundry or steelworks is more peacefull | than quetly living on a farm? There is less conflict | between workers than farmers? | | What is the basis for this fantasy? | tristor wrote: | Human history is full of violence, and not all of it is | between "betters" and "lessers", it's just people being | violent towards one another to get what they want. Post- | industrial society established social order and rule of | law much more clearly than anything prior. A big piece of | this was due to compulsory and inclusive education, but | many other factors including the rise of enterprises | which required social interactions to reach personal | success changed society to a structure where | collaboration was rewarded much more so than violence, | which was punished. | | This was not the case prior to industrialization. You | have some idyllic pastoral fantasy in mind, which was not | true. | nerdponx wrote: | I don't think you're reading the article as-written. | | It'd be nice to see some sources for the quoted pamphlets, | but if we assume that they are actual quotes from primary | source material, it's quite telling. | | The article _does_ get a lot wrong, e.g. conflating | feudalism with modern industrialized capitalism (hunting | was been controlled by central political authorities for | centuries before the industrial revolution). | | But there's also a good point being made, that breaking up | communal economic systems can be used as a tool of | subjugation and control. There's nothing in here about | self-sufficiency or subsistence per se. | notahacker wrote: | tbh he's not wrong that the article says more about the | partisan slant of the authors than it does about British | industrial history. The article touches upon self | sufficiency with the argument that that peasants could | have made their own shoes from their own leather in a | matter of hours so buying them proved they were poorer (a | particular load of er... old cobblers) and I'm not sure | various quotes about peasants being lazy proves anything | more than the fact snobbery existed. | | There's plenty of actually problematic stuff (the | Enclosure Act) that happened to the British peasantry | mostly _before_ the Industrial Revolution without taking | the view that peasantry was a particularly pleasant | lifestyle that nobody would volunteer to change. | nerdponx wrote: | * * * | tarotuser wrote: | Ned Ludd's premise was of the quality of autonomy and life of | the workers that were being automated. As automation came in, | workers got less money, treated worse, and had worse lives. | | Being called a 'Luddite' was NEVER about technology, but whom | gains from technology. | | And I dare-say he was right in his concerns. The gains of | technology are privatized by the owner class, even though we | worker class are the ones who utilize them. One needs to look | no further than the "gig economy". | arcticbull wrote: | They just wanted apprenticeships for operators and decent | pay. [1] | | Luddites were the victims of a very successful smear | campaign. | | [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites- | rea... | thescriptkiddie wrote: | The Luddites were not broadly opposed to new technology, they | were opposed to the ownership structure which cut them out of | the higher profits the new technology brought. | [deleted] | soiler wrote: | > quality of life empirics suggest the industrial revolution | was a benefit anyway. [citation needed] | | I'm not trying to stuff AI back into Pandora's box. It's here, | and it's coming. It _can_ be a really great thing, or it _can_ | be catastrophic. So I mostly agree with your last point. But it | we 're going to talk about learning from our mistakes, the | industrial revolution gave us The Jungle, and Amazon, and the | obliteration of The Amazon. | | Things didn't work out for the best; many of them worked out | horribly. And things that did work out did so because the road | was paved with human bodies (and tens of billions of nonhuman | bodies). | wolverine876 wrote: | It didn't work out well for a great many of those workers or | their children. The people who got rich would not accept an ROI | two generations down the road. Are you willing to accept that | now - lose your career, much of your income, so that the | changes in society will benefit your grandchildren (while | billionaires and their children cash in right now)? | | 'It works out in the long run' is BS, and is always applied to | someone else. | allemagne wrote: | The author has two points that continually distract from each | other. They have a specific critique of worker conditions within | tech companies, but also a broad skepticism that AI can really be | all that effective or innovative, rather than an abstraction over | the workers who "really" do the work. Their first point is solid | and is accompanied by immediate calls to action, their second is | vague, wrong, and potentially dangerously naive. | | They use AI, "so-called AI", or "AI" (with scare quotes) | interchangeably. Besides being unnecessarily confusing with their | own terminology, they are bringing in a pointless philosophical | debate about what "intelligence" or "learning" really is. The | "40% of AI startups that don't actually use any AI" is mentioned | not because they're misleading investors or users, but because | they point out that the "AI" label makes workers less visible, | and then they can tie that to Amazon's "artificial artificial | intelligence" and go on from there to show or at least imply that | pretty much all AI is a big smokescreen to justify the | marginalization of workers. | | However... isn't that begging the question? Do we actually care | whether these systems learn and think the same way humans do, do | their own original work, or whether they're just a worker | pretending to be a chatbot? Does that make it okay to underpay | gig workers, give them PTSD, or subject them to poor conditions? | | Maybe "real AI" never materializes, but also maybe it just keeps | improving until it doesn't matter. If so it's dangerous to deny | that these systems can ever meaningfully replace or augment | humans. We can't pretend that we live in a universe where | something will forever be inferior to good old-fashioned human | labor just because of the disturbing social implications. | aborsy wrote: | I assure you, even if the technology one day is fully | unsupervised, with minimal involvement from the humans, no carbon | emission, etc, people will still publish the exact same articles, | form unions, protest, etc: we are abused, there is inequality and | exploitation, the productivity gains of technologies must be | equally shared regardless of the contributions, introduce ever | higher taxation, and so on. | | Amazon apparently pays around $25/hour to its starting warehouse | workers. That's 1k per week for 40 hours per week, or around | 4k/month. That's more than what French government pays its rocket | scientists. People can discover their market rates based on their | skills, and are free to work for another employer. There is no | lock down. | ceres wrote: | > That's more than what French government pays its rocket | scientists. | | I was about to call bullshit but then looked up the average | salary for an aeronautical engineer in France and it was... | bleak. | [deleted] | guywithahat wrote: | Sometimes I wonder if these "ethical" articles are only put up to | stop new companies from competing. | | Like "ok now that OpenAI Inc has a basic AI, lets be sure to | close the door behind us so we don't have to deal with competing | startups" | hnbad wrote: | By that logic any revelations about bad labor conditions | underlying first world products or services only serve to | prevent competition from also exploiting those conditions. | | If your ethical conundrum is between continuing to allow the | exploitation of the post-colonial third world, and to stifle | competition in first world markets, I think you need to retake | an ethics class because that is not a conundrum. | 908B64B197 wrote: | I noticed "Ethics of X" is generally a great field for those | who can't cut it in field X. See the "Ethics of AI crowd as an | example", that seems to be mostly made of "tech adjacent" | folks. | | Probably the best example here [0]. | | [0] https://syncedreview.com/2020/06/30/yann-lecun-quits- | twitter... | optimalsolver wrote: | Would be less need for these articles if major tech companies | would stop acting like villains in a sci-fi movie. | pelasaco wrote: | did you check in which conditions and countries your shoes, | t-shirts, pants, etc are manufactured? | roughly wrote: | Yes. Wherever possible, I try to be aware of the | consequences of my actions, and adjust how I do things when | I find they're leading to outcomes I feel are not in | alignment with my ethics. | Der_Einzige wrote: | Cyberpunk* | _Algernon_ wrote: | Wouldn't see them "acting like villains in a sci-fi movie" if | there weren't systematic economic incentives for them to act | this way. | roughly wrote: | And yet, every one of these organizations consists of | individuals making sets of individual decisions on an | ongoing basis, who indeed face incentives as well* but also | persist in making the dubious ethical decisions that the | company enacts, and we can in fact judge them for this, | because companies are made of people who don't actually | abdicate moral responsibility for their actions by logging | into a corporate email system. | | *And here's where I digress to say, again, that, indeed if | you are the single mother of a child with a heart condition | wholly reliant on the expensive company health care not | lapsing for even a minute lest your child not just die but | literally explode, taking your whole family and half the | neighborhood with them, I'm not judging you. If, on the | other hand, you're a single dude between 20 and 35 with a | college degree, significant assets, no debt, and a sellable | skillset, yes, you're the one I'm judging. | gsatic wrote: | That's cause people today don't just say hey look what I built. | Everyone acts as if they are doing something world changing. | And it's bullshit, and the backlash is natural and well | deserved. | dekhn wrote: | These articles are written to make people feel guilty about | their lives. The ultimate goal is economic equalization. | croes wrote: | The goal is awareness. There is no such thing as free lunch, | somebody has to do the dirty work for too little money. | whatshisface wrote: | The amount of dirty work increases as the price of labor | goes down, because companies put less effort into inventing | labor-saving techniques. | VLM wrote: | The circular reasoning is entertaining, as the low priced | labor is theoretically generating the AI to be the | ultimate labor-saving technique. But you don't need to | save "too cheap to meter" labor. What was the last thing | that was "too cheap to meter?" Ah yes nuclear power. Look | how that turned out. | | The two problems with trying to save the world via AI are | the cheapest self driving car is a passenger train driven | by "too cheap to automate" human, and an economy based on | AI will be too poverty stricken from wealth inequality to | permit the AI to generate a profit thus AI is not needed | thus no need to destroy everything by applying AI. | | The more AI is deployed, the poorer an economy will | become, and the cheaper labor will become, making it | quite a race to see if the AI gets smarter faster than | economic activity implodes. | | The most likely outcome of AI boosterism will be | something like the environmentalist movement, but anti- | AI. Who will be "The Lorax" of anti-AI? | dekhn wrote: | Are you sure it's too little money? articles like this | often report wages that sound small to a person living in | western Europe or US, but when compared to people in the | same economy, these salaries are often competitive. | | And yes, somebody has to do the dirty work. | godelski wrote: | This is why I can never understand these articles. How | much is $1.46/hr? Is it a little? A lot? Average? So I | head over to Google and look up the answer[0]. But | everything is in yearly wages so $1.46*2080 ~= $3037. | Looks like it would be a lot in Sudan or Myanmar, an | average in Egypt, and not a lot in Sri Lanka or Ukraine. | But are these numbers even trustworthy? We had a post | about this just the other day. | | But we don't even know the countries that are being used! | So we're back to the original question: is it a little? A | lot? Average? Honestly, when I see people spout out raw | numbers alarm bells go off in my head. Doesn't matter if | it is wage, number of car crashes, or number of murders. | We have so many fucking people on this planet that a | small percentage of a large number is still a large | number. There are definitely people using this in | deceitful manners. There are also dumb people, but | idiocracy can still be accidentally malicious. The reason | it is easy to lie with statistics and data is because it | is actually really difficult to compare numbers and data | across differing conditions. In this case, it really does | not make sense to compare the wages of an American to the | wages of a Sri Lankan. The price of an apple in both | places isn't equal. | | Still, I don't know the answer to my question. | | [0] https://www.worlddata.info/average-income.php | andrepd wrote: | The fact that it's a lot in Egypt or Myanmar just means | wages are low in those countries. It's easy to say "well | that's just the way it is" while you're sat near the top | of the pyramid. | [deleted] | godelski wrote: | You're simplifying things too much though. There are | important questions still. For example, how much does an | apple cost? Rent? These are not equal in these countries. | But also, let's say that they paid $3/hr in Egypt you | could end up flooding the market. $15/hr and it could | ironically be disastrous. We actually have seen stuff | like this before when Westerners move in to other | countries. The problem is that the local markets can't | compete. Then we have a whole neocolonialism situation. | | If your goal is to actually help people in a country get | out of poverty this is actually quite a difficult goal to | achieve without taking over that country (implicitly or | explicitly). We don't want to physically invade. We don't | want to economically invade. But we also don't want them | to sit in poverty so we have to do something right? So | how do you do that and let them maintain their | independence? They might not even want to work with us to | begin with! Don't pretend that these are trivial problems | and us westerners sitting at a computer just know what's | best. That's how colonialism started in the first place. | astrange wrote: | Paying extraordinarily higher than average wages in a | poor country has downsides - most likely they'll be | stolen (since most charity is stolen) but it also annoys | the government when eg local doctors stop their practices | to work for you. | croes wrote: | Often competitive only means other jobs also pay too | little money | nerdponx wrote: | If all you take away from this is that "someone is trying to | make me feel guilty", then maybe you need to re-assess your | own personal sense of guilt, and stop projecting it onto | other people. | brookst wrote: | Nobody can make you feel anything. | | If true information induces feelings in you, perhaps it's | more constructive to reflect on the information rather than | the motives of the reporter? | nomel wrote: | > Nobody can make you feel anything. | | A simple phrasing like this does not reflect the reality of | humanities evolution and resulting biology. We're social | creatures, requiring that others make us feel things: | https://www.apa.org/monitor/oct05/mirror | | Unless you're a psychopath, perhaps: | https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321839 | dekhn wrote: | I did journalism in high school and I know quite well that | how you present true information (framing) or distort true | information (for example, by comparing African salaries to | the US) is done intentionally to make the reader feel | something- guilt, anger, a desire to vote for somebody | specific. | wavefunction wrote: | Does experience in high-school journalism support the | claim that professional journalism is all a conspiracy to | manipulate the reader? I doubt it, and I edited my high- | school newspaper for two years lol | dekhn wrote: | Did I say conspiracy? No. I'm making a generalization. If | you have sources for objective journalism, I'd love to | see them. The closest I've seen was the Economist about | 5-10 years ago. | pelasaco wrote: | > Nobody can make you feel anything. | | This in 2023, when people feel offended by anything, sounds | pretty off... | robotresearcher wrote: | > Nobody can make you feel anything | | The size of the advertising industry suggests otherwise. | 8note wrote: | I don't see why somebody would feel guiltier about this than | wearing Nike shoes? | | It'll make a cottage industry of "data made in the USA" | | It continues to answer the question: can the west run without | maintaining a dedicated underclass -- no. | | Should we be paying even less to make sure that we can keep | that going? If those people get richer, these systems that | benefit us will stop working | chamwislothe2nd wrote: | I believe this is a form of astroturfing and it is hard not to | see this stuff. Remember all those articles about the AI winter | a few years ago? In reality, there was no winter. Lot's of | smart people took advantage of the opportunity and got | incredibly wealthy during that period of time and now we see | some of the fruits of that labour. It's just the beginning too. | | It's important, in my opinion, to always ask 'who benefits from | me believing this?' | roughly wrote: | I mean - | | > who benefits from me believing this? | | In the case of this article, presumably the exploited* | laborers whose labor conditions might improve if the | population to whom this article is addressed both became | aware and started to care about the labor conditions of the | people behind the systems they use. Trying to 4D chess | ourselves into not having to actually address the issue at | hand isn't clever or insightful, it's just abdication with | numbers attached. | | * I'm not arguing whether or not the behavior described in | the article actually constitutes exploitation or is just the | noble hand of the market more perfectly forming working | conditions - that's not my point. The point is if you DO read | the article and you DO feel that behavior's exploitative, | scratching your head over who's got an agenda to want this | thing you find abhorrent changed, as opposed to trying to | change the behavior you find abhorrent, is the kind of thing | people think smart people are supposed to do, and tends to | contribute to more things you find abhorrent happening in the | world. | chamwislothe2nd wrote: | It can be both true and used for astroturfing. | ghaff wrote: | I'm not sure how widespread the sentiment was that there was | going to be a near-term AI winter. | | What you did have was increasing skepticism that things like | fully-realized door-to-door autonomous driving were going | happen in the short-run--but a lot of the skeptics didn't | think that would necessarily translate into an AI winter. | bumby wrote: | > _Remember all those articles about the AI winter a few | years ago?_ | | FTA: | | > _" MMC Ventures surveyed 2,830 AI startups in the EU and | found that 40% of them didn't use AI in a meaningful way."_ | | While not the same as an AI winter, it can still be | indicative of "peak hype". If accurate, a large portion of | companies are claiming to have some nebulous AI advantage | aren't really delivering on that promise. It's doesn't have | to be astroturfing to be pointing out a hype machine. | Particularly if that hype is predicated on a shaky ethical | foundation. | chamwislothe2nd wrote: | It doesn't have to be, no, but it might be. It's worth | reconsidering the things we believe every now and then. | jrochkind1 wrote: | You are imagining that someone who otherwise would start a | competing company would just choose not to after reading this | article? Or what? | dqpb wrote: | That's not what this article is about. | LatteLazy wrote: | I wonder if they are an "inside job": doing such a terrible job | of making an ethical case against AI convinces people it must | be fine... | brudgers wrote: | To me, the use of cheap labor for training suggests the level | of importance AI companies place on avoiding social/cultural | biases in the model in two ways. | | 1. Companies standards would be much higher if classification | was done by engineers paid engineering salaries. And engineers | would be directly accountable for model biases instead of bias | being excused on the basis of how sausage gets made. | | 2. Outsourcing classification explicitly means classification | is not valuable as a core competency; not an area in which | expertise is important; and not an activity deserving of the | benefits of direct employment such as financial rewards | correlated to business success (e.g. bonuses, raises, options, | etc.). | [deleted] | VLM wrote: | Its a supply and demand problem. The supply of human AI gig | workers vastly staggeringly exceeds the demand for human AI | workers. Trash talking the entire industry just means the poor | will get poorer and be worse treated when the demand dries up | even more. So I'm not really clear on the social justice angle of | the article. | | This does bring up an important long term market point. If there | are an essentially infinite number of people willing to drive a | car for practically nothing, tell me again why do we need self | driving cars as an example of AI? Its not like we're running out | of poor people anytime soon, they don't cost much of anything, so | why waste all that money on kicking the poor people out of the | economy? Eventually, once everyone's kicked out of the economy, | there won't be anyone left to buy the very expensive self driving | cars anyway, and no one will need self driving cars because | they'll be nowhere economically viable left to drive to. | Certainly we can "self reproduce" car drivers much cheaper than | we can produce self driving cars full of unobtainable | microprocessors, and producing human drivers is much more "black | swan" proof than producing globalist microprocessors. | | The other problem is a economy, in the long run, has to serve its | participants. Lets say as a thought experiment its inevitable | that all capital and all economic activity will solely be | concentrated in those with IQs over 150 or sociopathic tendencies | or outright criminality, and of course with everyone else kicked | out of the economy they will be the sole beneficiaries of AI, | much like the European Royalty was, in some sense, the the only | beneficiary of gold mining industry. Well... won't 99% of the | population go all French Revolution on them and fire up the | guillotines? As soon as those people at the top of the pyramid | are removed, and there won't be too many of them, the 99% of the | population can go back to happy productivity. Any individual who | rebels during the runup will get steamrolled by the rest of their | competitors who don't rebel from the plan, but the endpoint of | the plan is anyone cooperating with the plan to the inevitable | endpoint will get the guillotine in the end, so what's the | maximally efficient game theory perspective if you're trapped in | a self destructive game where either total participation or | obvious non-participation results in your demise? Well, | everyone's better off if everyone "phones it in" and fails. So I | expect a lot of "totally unexpected" AI failures. | | Another philosophical problem is we've run a repeated massively | parallel experiment on producing smarter better educated "non- | artificial" intelligence entities known as the university system, | etc. It really hasn't worked out other than the usual primate | dominance ritual purposes and making certain the people at the | top stay at the top. But people seem to think if we emulate that | nonsense that never worked in a computer, it'll work next time. | Sort of like perpetual motion doesn't work IRL out in the real | world but if you abuse a CAD/CAM program hard enough a simulation | of perpetual motion will work in a computer ... but even if we | fake it in a computer simulation, that STILL doesn't mean it'll | work IRL. Its almost like a "heisenberg uncertainty principle" of | AI where if we had AI it seems the universe routes around it such | that it can't make a net profit. Kind of like burning two barrels | of crude oil to grow one barrel of ethanol to replace a barrel of | crude oil, graph that out and see where it leads? | | I'm just saying, if "low IQ" biologicals are already economically | excluded, why would "low IQ" AIs not also be economically | excluded? And we've proven we can't educate "better" biologicals, | so trying to produce a master race of AIs is likely to fail just | as badly as those past experiments. | scotty79 wrote: | > "So-called AI systems are fueled by millions of underpaid | workers around the world, performing repetitive tasks under | precarious labor conditions." | | You can say this exact thing about capitalism as a whole. | Children working in coltan mines and on cocoa plantations and | such. | | It feels a bit superficial to write articles that just jump on | some cool tech bandwagon just to point out that this tech is also | exploitative. Because nearly everything is. And in case of that | specific tech it's probably not that bad when compared to | children in coltan mines. | | It's a feature of our economy that we, well off people, all | benefit from, our entire life. | | We'd have to change entire rules of engagement and who's gonna | pay to make that happen? We are not going to change it by playing | whack-a-mole with global behemoths. | golemiprague wrote: | [dead] | Xelynega wrote: | Children working in coltan mines and on cocoa plantations are | part of the same issue, so I don't understand why you take | issue with that issue being brought to the forefront using | 'some cool tech bandwagon'. It's a cool tech bandwagon because | people's eyes are on it, if you agree these issues are issues | wouldn't you want them seen by those eyes? | | I don't quite understand your final point. Yes, changing the | labour relations globally would require global changes. | | > Who's gonna pay to make that happen? | | It's a misunderstanding to frame it like this, because the | answer is that the exploited people are already paying for the | current reality with their labour. Why is it assumed that they | can continue to shoulder the majority of the work for the | minority of the benefits, but the idea that the work and | benefits should be spread more evenly is abhorrent? | scotty79 wrote: | > I don't understand why you take issue with that issue being | brought to the forefront using 'some cool tech bandwagon'. | | It just feels cheap and even less effective than other | approaches. It promotes a whack-a-mole mindset. | | > It's a misunderstanding to frame it like this, because the | answer is that the exploited people are already paying for | the current reality with their labour. | | Ah, I see your misunderstanding. I didn't mean that somebody | will bear the cost of a change. I meant that for any change | to happen somebody must pay out of their ears for political | influence to force that change. | | The only maeningful laws that come into power are laws that | somebody bought. Who's gonna buy 'non-exploitation' law if | everybody with any money (billionaires, but also you and me) | benefits from this exploitation? | | Want to solve the problem? Figure a way how someone can earn | big money on preventing exploitation of people. | chatterhead wrote: | This is a first world manipulation into some kind of contrived | "workers unite" hit piece. | | This has nothing to do with real AI and instead this author is | trying to pass off hacks and gapfills as an entire industry or | pursuit for the purpose of manufacturing suffering or abuse that | isn't there. | | This author has a terrible perspective. | | If we have to enslave the whole world for 1 year to build an AI | that elevates all for eternity. Would you do it? | Xelynega wrote: | > If we have to enslave the whole world for 1 year to build an | AI that elevates all for eternity. | | I think this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues | in the article. | | Using your analogy, the article is asking the question: "if we | have to continually enslave entire nations to build an AI that | a single private corporations benefits directly from, and | individuals in first world countries benefits indirectly from. | Would you do it?" | | The reason it's unethical is because of the system of | exploitation we live in. So to answer your question yes, if we | remove that system of exploitation and everyone benefits | equally after suffering equally for a year I would "press that | button" so to speak. The problem is that's not the reality for | AI and those who work to support it. | [deleted] | deltree7 wrote: | I'm thankful for all the Western companies that exploited my | labor from age 21 to 25 where I was paid a measly $100 per month | or $5 / day. | | Thanks to that experience, I now make 100x more. | | If it were progressive liberals, sitting in their comfort home, | trying to protect me, I would have been totally not exposed to | the amazing opportunity this 'exploitative capitalistic company' | gave me and literally changed my life and people around me | forever. | | Woke Mind Virus is real and a cancer to real progress ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-01-20 23:00 UTC)