4 ms·

> Supposedly the "important" people are still employed. For now I don't know if you're unaware of this or omitting it to mislead others, but everyone laid off

> Supposedly the "important" people are still employed. For now I don't know if you're unaware of this or omitting it to mislead others, but everyone laid off were data labelers. This is completely consistent with a strategy shift to preserve capital: in-house annotation isn't that common for AV companies anyway. And data labelers are 100% the most "unimportant" in-house workers: their job is literally to be as consistent and mechanical as possible. In contrast to those defining and building the labeling procrsses, their job is to be as mechanical as possible. I'm not a fan of Tesla. I think their approach to self-driving is irresponsible. But the level of dishonesty in conversation about them is astonishing, even on fora like this that are ostensibly higher-quality.

ncmncm 4y ago
The news report said "mostly". So, who is being dishonest?
- wutbrodo 4y ago
  Other coverage, like CNN, made it sound like the layoffs were concentrated along annotators. But your comment made me double-check the original reporting[1], which AFAICT says that the layoffs were both data evaluators and annotators. Granting you the pedantry point here, I hereby happily amend my comment to refer to "data [evaluators] and annotators", with zero impact on my point. > So, who is being dishonest? Not sure if you're actually familiar with the definition of the word? Being potentially technically wrong on a pt that doesn't change the overall claim is enormously different from the core of a claim being wrong (eg the implication that "supposedly important people haven't been laid off" when they demonstrably focused the layoffs on the most commoditizable and replaceable labor in the industry). [1] https://archive.ph/i6BCD https://archive.ph/i6BCD
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    If you complain about the quality of discussion, the onus is on you to be better. But, you are not better, or even as good. My original "important" was more accurate than your criticism taking it as an example of unfair dialog and, supposedly, correcting it. But you do prove your point: discussion of the topic was here, with your comments, overall only a little better than your own contribution. Without, though, substantially better.

ncmncm 4y ago

The news report said "mostly". So, who is being dishonest?

wutbrodo 4y ago
Other coverage, like CNN, made it sound like the layoffs were concentrated along annotators. But your comment made me double-check the original reporting[1], which AFAICT says that the layoffs were both data evaluators and annotators. Granting you the pedantry point here, I hereby happily amend my comment to refer to "data [evaluators] and annotators", with zero impact on my point. > So, who is being dishonest? Not sure if you're actually familiar with the definition of the word? Being potentially technically wrong on a pt that doesn't change the overall claim is enormously different from the core of a claim being wrong (eg the implication that "supposedly important people haven't been laid off" when they demonstrably focused the layoffs on the most commoditizable and replaceable labor in the industry). [1] https://archive.ph/i6BCD https://archive.ph/i6BCD
- ncmncm 4y ago
  If you complain about the quality of discussion, the onus is on you to be better. But, you are not better, or even as good. My original "important" was more accurate than your criticism taking it as an example of unfair dialog and, supposedly, correcting it. But you do prove your point: discussion of the topic was here, with your comments, overall only a little better than your own contribution. Without, though, substantially better.