5 ms·
This is not novel. Mturk has always been automated since its very first release. I remember worker forums sharing scripts to query amazon for the expected resu
by geraldwhen 3y ago
This is not novel. Mturk has always been automated since its very first release.
I remember worker forums sharing scripts to query amazon for the expected results that would get you paid. Amazon put up a bunch of very lucrative test jobs, but you only got paid if your answer matched the majority. The majority were automating, so unless you used the sometimes incorrect answers, you got nothing.
- JustBreath 3y agoIt's surreal that even when it comes to AI we still fundamentally rely on underpaid labor.
- ironmagma 3y agoI used to think that. But when you think more about what value is, how it’s created and how we extract it to pay our insane salaries, it becomes less surprising and more sad.
- elvis10ten 3y agoCan you say more on this (value and how it’s extracted)?
- ironmagma 3y agoIf you are doing something that has inherent value — extracting gold from a mine, performing music, working a factory line — you are the top of funnel for value creation. Unfortunately for you, the only way for society to run is to have your would-be profits extracted to the maximum extent by other parties. Therefore the rich are the ones who actually don’t tend to produce as much and those who do are taken advantage of. The father away you are from value production, generally the better off you are.
- chii 3y ago> The father away you are from value production, generally the better off you are. you are only counting the human labour involved in the creation of value. what about the capital? Would you, as a hired gold miner, be able to accept zero pay for your work, until the gold is sold (then you got the full price of the sold gold)? What if you starved between the time you mined it, and the time it takes to sell? And how would you have gotten the equipment to do the mining in the first place, let alone the ownership of the mine.
- NullifyNAN 3y agoThe equipment was constructed by workers. The mine was constructed by workers. The food to feed the workers was produced by workers. The gold was sold by workers. If value was derived from capital itself, then a pile of tools or machines would spontaneously generate wealth without the application of human labor, and idle money in a bank would somehow enrich society.
- ironmagma 3y agoNo, but also that wouldn’t be possible because you can’t give 100% of the value to the miner or else the mining operation will cease due to the lack of overhead (supervisors, salesmen, equipment). The starvation argument is pointless, a lot of people get paid with commission and they survive. Also I’m not even saying there’s an alternative to the current system so what are you on about?
- digdugdirk 3y agoI'm not sure what you're arguing for/against with this line of reasoning. The previous statement was in regards to the extraction of value - modern markets are such that the best(/fastest/easiest/etc) way to make money is to be at the top of the value chain and let your capital do the work. This is a self-reinforcing feedback loop, enabling you to use your increasing gains to find other forms of leverage (in your example - buying the mine and the equipment, setting up commodity trading positions, etc) and keep on ratcheting up the leverage. One inevitable outcome is for you to have the opportunity to use this leverage against the people doing the actual digging up of the gold.
- somsak2 3y agoour salaries are not insane given how much value is created. the amount that is captured by peak capitalists is insane. ultimately you need to get away from being reliant on a salary and become a capitalist yourself. otherwise you're just one of billions that are a few bad breaks away from starvation.
- ironmagma 3y agoThey are insane compared to the global average. One person does not actually create this much value. What happens (in the case of tech) is that corporations in aggregate create the value due to automation, but then they're very inefficient at not burning out their employees so they end up spending a ton on retention. You assume I'm not a capitalist. When did I say I wasn't?
- bufferoverflow 3y agoIt's not underpaid. The people are willing to work for that money.
- mangecoeur 3y agoThe one does not exclude the other.
- danielbln 3y agoWhen is someone underpaid though?
- petesergeant 3y agoWhen they could paid more in their current situation with a job they can both get and would enjoy the same amount.
- netrus 3y agoApparently they are not paid enough to deter them from cheating.
- bufferoverflow 3y agoYou don't think (some) millionaires or billionaires cheat?
- petesergeant 3y agoThe history of white collar crime by execs suggests there’s not an amount that’s enough to stop cheating
- geraldwhen 3y agoExactly this. Using automation, you could make $60/hr nearly two decades ago. Without automation, a few bucks an hour and a lot of your work was rejected for payment.
- leshow 3y agoBy this logic nobody can ever be underpaid lol
- gumby 3y agoWe do that with natural intelligence too: in most countries teachers are underpaid.
- abwizz 3y agocounterpoint: ppl in important (social value) positions have to be underpaid to guard against the ones that are just in it for the money.
- mitchdoogle 3y agoThat's ridiculous. Everybody is in it for the money. Employers choose how to measure performance, so if there is some particular attribute they want, they make it clear and hire (and raise pay) based on that.
- abwizz 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
- CatWChainsaw 3y agoCEO pay has been increasing far faster than wages for their employees since the 1970s and they're "underpaid"?
- JimtheCoder 3y ago"in most countries teachers are underpaid." Based on the average level of competency I see (There are definitely exceptions), I would disagree...