[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.