4 ms·

AI can already solve captchas, no need to exploit poor countries.

cmcconomy 3y ago
thats right the exploitation is already baked into the ai training process
Satam 3y ago
Exploit? No one's forcing people to solve captchas, they do it because it's a good deal for them. I'm from a country that was relatively quite poor just 15-20 years ago, and I can say stuff opportunities like were positive, not exploitative.
- fwip 3y ago
  That's what exploitation is. You see people in a bad situation, and think "oh hey, I can profit from that." Exploitation (usually) isn't slavery, and most people who are exploited voluntarily enter into that relationship.
  - algas 3y ago
    Genuinely curious -- is there a reason not to exploit someone who voluntarily enters into that relationship? I always assumed 'exploitation' meant forcing people to do things they didn't want to do.
    - Joker_vD 3y ago
      Well, it's a moral question and therefore there is no universal answer, everyone decides it for themselves. And given the fact that when presented with a choice between starving under a bridge or working a back-breaking work for 12 hours per day, most of the people historically have voluntarily chosen to labour, one could argue that indeed it is entirely ethical.
    - oarsinsync 3y ago
      > I always assumed 'exploitation' meant forcing people to do things they didn't want to do. From https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/exploitation https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/exploita... exploitation noun [U] (UNFAIR TREATMENT) the act of using someone or something unfairly for your own advantage: exploitation of Marx wrote about the exploitation of the workers. We want to put a stop to the exploitation of children by adults. The exploitation of fear is an effective means of manipulation. These people are the victims of reality TV exploitation.
EGreg 3y ago
Literally AI can do everything humans can online. The only “human check” that works is asking the person to periodically appear and check in at some real life events with other humans. And even that will only last long enough until lifelike robots will be able to simulate humans better than many humans.
- objectivetruth 3y ago
  [dead]
toolz 3y ago
If paying people that need the money just to survive is exploitation, is it better or worse to pay people more money for slightly less trivial stuff that don't need that money to survive? I struggle to see how providing opportunity to the poorest people in the world is bad and I'd go so far as to say a worldview that finds this behavior bad is harmful to the people who need help the most. If you want to enable the most vulnerable people in the world to live better lives you do so by providing better opportunity, not by taking away the only opportunity they have. e.g. if a child is working at a sweatshop so the family doesn't starve, you help the child by providing the family with food so there's no need for the child to voluntarily work at the sweatshop. You most certainly don't take away the sweatshop and watch the family starve.
- SkyBelow 3y ago
  >You most certainly don't take away the sweatshop and watch the family starve. Doesn't history show this is precisely the solution people choose? It makes themselves feel like they have done good, and as for the increased harm (kids working even worse 'jobs' than a sweatshop), well that isn't their fault so they don't need to feel bad, assuming they even find out about the negative effects of their decision?
  - cranberryturkey 3y ago
    the guy is nuts
  - toolz 3y ago
    > It makes themselves feel like they have done good because "they" (assuming you mean the opportunity provider) have done good. It's not an optimal good or even a baseline for what is considered a good lifestyle, but it gives a family a better option. Sweatshop work isn't a great option, but I would say it's objectively a better option than starving to death. Just because something doesn't meet the baseline definition for a good lifestyle doesn't mean it's not an improvement upon the reality they live in (and thus good). > and as for the increased harm I think I'm misunderstanding you, but are you suggesting a kid working in the worst sweatshop is being harmed more than if they were to starve to death? Even if you find this to be true, it's self-evident the families sending their children to work in that sweatshop believe the sweatshop is an improvement on their life.

thats right the exploitation is already baked into the ai training process

Exploit? No one's forcing people to solve captchas, they do it because it's a good deal for them. I'm from a country that was relatively quite poor just 15-20 years ago, and I can say stuff opportunities like were positive, not exploitative.

fwip 3y ago
That's what exploitation is. You see people in a bad situation, and think "oh hey, I can profit from that." Exploitation (usually) isn't slavery, and most people who are exploited voluntarily enter into that relationship.
- algas 3y ago
  Genuinely curious -- is there a reason not to exploit someone who voluntarily enters into that relationship? I always assumed 'exploitation' meant forcing people to do things they didn't want to do.
  - Joker_vD 3y ago
    Well, it's a moral question and therefore there is no universal answer, everyone decides it for themselves. And given the fact that when presented with a choice between starving under a bridge or working a back-breaking work for 12 hours per day, most of the people historically have voluntarily chosen to labour, one could argue that indeed it is entirely ethical.
  - oarsinsync 3y ago
    > I always assumed 'exploitation' meant forcing people to do things they didn't want to do. From https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/exploitation https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/exploita... exploitation noun [U] (UNFAIR TREATMENT) the act of using someone or something unfairly for your own advantage: exploitation of Marx wrote about the exploitation of the workers. We want to put a stop to the exploitation of children by adults. The exploitation of fear is an effective means of manipulation. These people are the victims of reality TV exploitation.

EGreg 3y ago

Literally AI can do everything humans can online. The only “human check” that works is asking the person to periodically appear and check in at some real life events with other humans. And even that will only last long enough until lifelike robots will be able to simulate humans better than many humans.

objectivetruth 3y ago
[dead]

toolz 3y ago

If paying people that need the money just to survive is exploitation, is it better or worse to pay people more money for slightly less trivial stuff that don't need that money to survive? I struggle to see how providing opportunity to the poorest people in the world is bad and I'd go so far as to say a worldview that finds this behavior bad is harmful to the people who need help the most. If you want to enable the most vulnerable people in the world to live better lives you do so by providing better opportunity, not by taking away the only opportunity they have. e.g. if a child is working at a sweatshop so the family doesn't starve, you help the child by providing the family with food so there's no need for the child to voluntarily work at the sweatshop. You most certainly don't take away the sweatshop and watch the family starve.

SkyBelow 3y ago
>You most certainly don't take away the sweatshop and watch the family starve. Doesn't history show this is precisely the solution people choose? It makes themselves feel like they have done good, and as for the increased harm (kids working even worse 'jobs' than a sweatshop), well that isn't their fault so they don't need to feel bad, assuming they even find out about the negative effects of their decision?
- cranberryturkey 3y ago
  the guy is nuts
- toolz 3y ago
  > It makes themselves feel like they have done good because "they" (assuming you mean the opportunity provider) have done good. It's not an optimal good or even a baseline for what is considered a good lifestyle, but it gives a family a better option. Sweatshop work isn't a great option, but I would say it's objectively a better option than starving to death. Just because something doesn't meet the baseline definition for a good lifestyle doesn't mean it's not an improvement upon the reality they live in (and thus good). > and as for the increased harm I think I'm misunderstanding you, but are you suggesting a kid working in the worst sweatshop is being harmed more than if they were to starve to death? Even if you find this to be true, it's self-evident the families sending their children to work in that sweatshop believe the sweatshop is an improvement on their life.