[danielmarkbruce]

The woman who started Sama (mentioned in the article) explicitly started the company to help people in those countries. Her entire life appears to have been directed toward helping people in Africa, she had a history of it. She wasn't there to exploit people.

[boeingUH60]

You mean the same Sama that charged OpenAI $12.50 per hour for a contract and paid their African contractors $2 or less an hour?

https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/

[metadat]

Discussed 2 days ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34426421 (570 comments)

(Warning: Shitshow)

[danielmarkbruce]

Time... aren't exactly being truthful. They constantly refer to "take-home", rather than pre-tax. The all in cost for a person includes pre-tax wages, often taxes on top of that, desks, computers, managers, electricity, office space, benefits and so on. Common sense suggests they are likely making 30% or so margins. If it were much more than that a competitor would eat their lunch. Look at the publicly listed services companies like DXC, Wipro, Accenture - margins are 20-30%.

[colpabar]

But it is exploitation though, right? If a bunch of people in a western company say "well, we could just hire people in africa because that would significantly reduce our costs," isn't that an exploitation of cheap labor in africa?

[danielmarkbruce]

I guess it depends on your definition of "exploit".

If OpenAI had to pay more, they would have gone with another option. It's challenging to work across time zones, across cultures, across language barriers. Working with folks in Reno, NV or somewhere in the southern states of the US would have been the choice for OpenAI at a much higher price.

It's a competitive world. On the surface the Sama founder knew that and realized the options were higher wages for these folks in Africa, or none. The choice of even higher wasn't actually on the table.

[ClumsyPilot]

> If OpenAI had to pay more, they would have gone with another option... Its a competitive world.

In 2000~s rating agencies rated subprime mortgages as AAA-bonds, causing the global financial crisis. If they rated the bonds as junk, the banks would go to another rating agency. Its a competitive world.

Therefore defrauding all of us was the right thing to do?

Just because the problem is inherent in the system and you individually can't change it, does not mean you cannot acknowledge the system's fault's.

[danielmarkbruce]

That's a clumsy analogy. Issuers paying for ratings is and agreed problem (the ratings agencies, issuers, investors, regulators agree it's a problem) and only happens because they can't make another model work.

Competition driving costs down is viewed by many as a good thing. Many people view the higher wages the folks in this case got v their other opportunities as an opportunity, not as them being exploited. Capitalism is a system which some might not agree with, but pretending it's an obvious problem is wrong. Pretending low prices is an obvious problem is wrong. Many countries have explicitly chosen a capitalist system (competitive, market model where costs and prices are driven down) and have legislation and agencies devoted to protecting the system. Those countries aren't run by dictators.

[jeremyjh]

Is it exploitation to buy things from poor people?

[ClumsyPilot]

Is it exploitation to buy a kidney from a homeless man for $500?

[the_af]

It can be, if you're taking advantage of them being poor in order to pay them way less than you would pay others.

[credit_guy]

It would be much worse if they paid way above the local wages. It would trigger corruption. You'd could up with a black market in applications for the jobs, or protection racket, or highly paid leaks of the job interview problem sets, imagination has no limit.

You can say it's OpenAI's duty to make sure all these things don't happen. But they are not there to police the local society. They are there to run their own business. They don't have the competency to make sure corruption does not happen.

[atlantic]

No, it's use of cheap labor in Africa.

[Dalewyn]

All business is about exploiting someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions. The only question is whether that exploitation is within tolerable limits.

[yesenadam]

> All business is about exploiting someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions.

Where did you learn that? I don't think it's at all true. It seems maybe you have a no-true-scotsman definition of 'exploited', so that no evidence against your claim would change your mind.

Picture a baker, who makes bread for people, who get bread, the baker gets money. Where is the necessary exploitation? I can't imagine where your confidence - "no exceptions" comes from. There are no win-win exchanges in the world, and none even possible? I'm not a huge fan of capitalism but that seems absurd.

[ben_w]

"Exploitation" has at least two (IMO very different) meanings.

Even though most of the time "exploiting an opportunity" is neutral and "exploiting our workers" is either a scam or abuse, I have seen some texts that used the word in the same sense for both cases.

[Dalewyn]

The baker is exploiting his customers' need/want for bread. The customers are exploiting the baker's need/want for money.

Another way to describe business is that all business is about ripping someone off without pissing them off (and ideally making them happy). Middlemen who make their profit off margins are the most obvious example, but as I said this applies to all forms of business.

I reiterate: All business is about exploiting someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions.

[yesenadam]

I think you are using the word "exploit" in a different way than it is usually used, leading most people to misunderstand you. Or as a sibling comment suggests, the word has two meanings, and your argument uses equivocation (two different meanings in two different places) to achieve an apparently thick, substantial conclusion out of nothing.

[Dalewyn]

Let me rephrase it using simpler language, then:

All business is about taking advantage of someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions.

The baker is taking advantage of his customers' need/want for bread. The customers are taking advantage of the baker's need/want for money.

[colpabar]

it's communist nonsense that's used to justify the idea that walking dogs for ~25 hours a week is just too much.