3 ms·

Didn't headline just state the fact objectively, and any negative implication comes from the mind of the reader? If not, how could the headline be less editoria

Didn't headline just state the fact objectively, and any negative implication comes from the mind of the reader? If not, how could the headline be less editorialized (in order to reduce the negative implication)?

somedude895 4y ago
"OpenAI hired Kenyan company to make ChatGPT less toxic" "Kenyan workers helped make OpenAI's ChatGPT less toxic" "OpenAI paid Kenyan workers minimum wage to work on ChatGPT" Many different things are objectively true, but of course they mention the pay, because they know that to most of their "Western" readers it sounds outrageous.
- __derek__ 4y ago
  The pay is not even close to the most outrageous way to headline this article: it uses "toxic" as a euphemism for, e.g., not generating CSAM, rape, and other sexual violence.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    A computer cannot generate CSAM. Please do not misuse that phrase and diminish its impact.
    - __derek__ 4y ago
      If an AI uses source images to generate novel reproductions, wouldn't that still count as CSAM? Regardless, I should have included the phrase "depictions of" or similar.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        If an AI is generating novel images, I wouldn't call them CSAM even if they fall under a rule that makes them illegal. If they're not properly novel then it depends on what the source images were, I guess? But it's not like you'd need to train it on anything obscene for it to figure out how to combine bad things with nudity.
ma2rten 4y ago
1. It doesn't contextualize that $2 is a good wage for Kenya. 2. It says OpenAI "used" workers which has a negative connotation. 3. It is factually incorrect: OpenAI paid a vendor $12.50 per hour. It's unclear if they knew how much the actual workers were paid. 4. It used a negative framing implying ChatGPT is toxic. So something like "OpenAI vendor paid Kenyan workers above median wage to make ChatGPT more safe"

somedude895 4y ago

"OpenAI hired Kenyan company to make ChatGPT less toxic" "Kenyan workers helped make OpenAI's ChatGPT less toxic" "OpenAI paid Kenyan workers minimum wage to work on ChatGPT" Many different things are objectively true, but of course they mention the pay, because they know that to most of their "Western" readers it sounds outrageous.

__derek__ 4y ago
The pay is not even close to the most outrageous way to headline this article: it uses "toxic" as a euphemism for, e.g., not generating CSAM, rape, and other sexual violence.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  A computer cannot generate CSAM. Please do not misuse that phrase and diminish its impact.
  - __derek__ 4y ago
    If an AI uses source images to generate novel reproductions, wouldn't that still count as CSAM? Regardless, I should have included the phrase "depictions of" or similar.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      If an AI is generating novel images, I wouldn't call them CSAM even if they fall under a rule that makes them illegal. If they're not properly novel then it depends on what the source images were, I guess? But it's not like you'd need to train it on anything obscene for it to figure out how to combine bad things with nudity.

ma2rten 4y ago

1. It doesn't contextualize that $2 is a good wage for Kenya. 2. It says OpenAI "used" workers which has a negative connotation. 3. It is factually incorrect: OpenAI paid a vendor $12.50 per hour. It's unclear if they knew how much the actual workers were paid. 4. It used a negative framing implying ChatGPT is toxic. So something like "OpenAI vendor paid Kenyan workers above median wage to make ChatGPT more safe"