4 ms·

I'm not a labor wage specialist so your guess is as good as mine. Do you think $1.32/hr. is fair? Are you of the impression after reading the article that the w

I'm not a labor wage specialist so your guess is as good as mine. Do you think $1.32/hr. is fair? Are you of the impression after reading the article that the worker's wellbeing was taken seriously and the pay was set at a fair amount considering the kind of work they were doing? I wasn't.

lolinder 4y ago
If you're not a wage specialist and my guess is as good as yours, why were you so quick to dismiss someone who actually lives in the country you're opining on?
- replwoacause 4y ago
  It's clear you're one who enjoys a circular argument so I'll just leave it at this for you. I don't need to know the exact right amount of money these people should be paid to know that $1.32 per hour for looking at child porn and violent imagery is too little, especially without the requisite mental health resources available. If you are so sure this is a fair situation, maybe for your next job you'll accept minimum wage pay doing similar work.
  - dumbfounder 4y ago
    It isn't pictures, it is text only. I think there is a huge difference. I had to police content for Twicsy (a search engine with 10 billion Twitter images indexed) and I have seen some very bad stuff. There is a huge difference.
    - absrd 4y ago
      This is just false, if you read the article Sama also collected explicit, illegal images on behalf of OpenAI -- this was the reason the contract was cancelled.
    - realAzazello 4y ago
      > It isn't pictures, it is text only For ChatGPT related, yes/maybe. But for other content filetering work, it's primarily video & pictures: https://www.wired.com/story/social-enterprise-technology-africa/ https://www.wired.com/story/social-enterprise-technology-afr...
PeterisP 4y ago
If for the local market $1.32-$2/hour take-home is good compared to alternatives (of which I have no idea, but local claims seem to support that, listing comparable rates but for gross not take-home), then yes, it's fair, and it would harm the workers if we'd prohibit that, because they would have to take a worse local job.

lolinder 4y ago

If you're not a wage specialist and my guess is as good as yours, why were you so quick to dismiss someone who actually lives in the country you're opining on?

replwoacause 4y ago
It's clear you're one who enjoys a circular argument so I'll just leave it at this for you. I don't need to know the exact right amount of money these people should be paid to know that $1.32 per hour for looking at child porn and violent imagery is too little, especially without the requisite mental health resources available. If you are so sure this is a fair situation, maybe for your next job you'll accept minimum wage pay doing similar work.
- dumbfounder 4y ago
  It isn't pictures, it is text only. I think there is a huge difference. I had to police content for Twicsy (a search engine with 10 billion Twitter images indexed) and I have seen some very bad stuff. There is a huge difference.
  - absrd 4y ago
    This is just false, if you read the article Sama also collected explicit, illegal images on behalf of OpenAI -- this was the reason the contract was cancelled.
  - realAzazello 4y ago
    > It isn't pictures, it is text only For ChatGPT related, yes/maybe. But for other content filetering work, it's primarily video & pictures: https://www.wired.com/story/social-enterprise-technology-africa/ https://www.wired.com/story/social-enterprise-technology-afr...

PeterisP 4y ago

If for the local market $1.32-$2/hour take-home is good compared to alternatives (of which I have no idea, but local claims seem to support that, listing comparable rates but for gross not take-home), then yes, it's fair, and it would harm the workers if we'd prohibit that, because they would have to take a worse local job.