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.
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%.
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
All business is about exploiting someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions. The only question is whether that exploitation is within tolerable limits.
> 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.
"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.
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.
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.
Business is about trade. Trade has an amazing property where when we trade, we can create value out of nothing. Excess apples aren’t worth much to an apple farmer. If an apple farmer gives some apples to a plumber in exchange for fixing the pipes in her bathroom, both people are better off. Value for both parties has been created out of nowhere. It’s magic. And to this day, I can pay a plumber to fix my leaky tap and we both walk away from the trade feeling like we got a good deal.
Businesses are organisations designed to systematically “exploit” trade to generate profit - which ends up in the hands of their customers (my tap got fixed), and the employees and owners in the form of money.
Healthy businesses have created all the wealth that exists. Let that sink in! Trade (usually through businesses) is the mechanism that has given us the bounty of modern life.
I also agree that capitalism is a demon we have summoned from beyond the veil that doesn’t truly care about us. Unbridled capitalism will overfish, send children into cobalt mines, and encourage bankers to commit fraud. As the economist says, we need healthy regulation to curb capitalism’s excesses.
But classifying it as entirely evil, or entirely exploitative is too much. If you really feel that way, try living without trading if you like. Sounds like a sure fire way to end up homeless. I wouldn’t last a day.
Saying business is exploitative is pejorative - it implies wrongness. If you don’t mean to imply a moral judgement, maybe use a different word.
If you don’t mean to imply wrongness, then I’m not sure how your point of view is any different from mine. Trade is two people, mutually and consensually getting something they want from each other such that they’re both happier. If the only difference is your use of the word “exploit” but you mean it in a non-moralising way, sounds like we agree.
I would ask why /you/ are implying to exploit is "wrong". At best that's a very narrow and fairly modernist reading. To exploit someone or something in and of itself has no negative connotations associated with it.
Business is exploiting someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions. Put another way, business is ripping someone off without pissing them off. Put another way, business is buying and selling time at a price that is acceptable. Ideally, business will culminate in all parties being happy.
If you think business or the act of exploiting something is "evil", or that capitalism is a "demon", that's your problem.
I'm describing business for what it is objectively. Some guy has a surplus of something you need/want, and you try and exploit that fact for your benefit. That is business.
> I would ask why /you/ are implying to exploit is "wrong". At best that's a very narrow and fairly modernist reading. To exploit someone or something in and of itself has no negative connotations associated with it.
You can die on that hill if you want, but "exploiting someone" has negative connotations in modern colloquial English. If a word doesn't fit what you're trying to communicate, use a different word or you will be misinterpreted.
> exploit (verb): 2. make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand: the company was exploiting a legal loophole. (Oxford Dictionary of English)
As evidenced by "exploit (verb): 2.", you are literally ignoring the /first/ definition of "exploit", which to quote Merriam-Webster[1] is:
>1
>: to make productive use of : UTILIZE
>exploiting your talents
>exploit your opponent's weakness
I would link to the Oxford English Dictionary, but apparently they demand I make an account and/or subscribe so that will have to wait for another day.
You have to go out of your way to associate negative connotations with the word "exploit", so please try again with your premisconceptions.
Ok; let me try again without my "premisconceptions" (not a word found in the Oxford English Dictionary, fwiw).
So your earlier comment should be read as:
> All business is about making productive use of someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions. The only question is whether that productive use is within tolerable limits.
... Except then that second sentence doesn't make sense now. If we take out the word "exploit", what are these "tolerable limits" of productive use you're pointing to? The original sentence read as if staying within "tolerable limits" is important to limit the implied harm we're doing by trading.
It reads like a motte-and-bailey argument[1] to me. Like what you're trying to say is this:
> All business is about exploiting ("1. to make productive use of / UTILIZE") someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions. The only question is whether that exploitation ("2. make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand") is within tolerable limits.
When pushed on why you think business is dangerous you fall back on definition 1 of exploit. But then you lean on definition 2 of "exploit" to imply wrongness - "The only question is whether that productive use is within tolerable limits.". Or as another commenter wrote, "Are [workers] actually happy? Or are they exploited? That's the issue."
The blending together of these definitions feels slippery and underhanded. I don't care what word you use. Do you think trade is good or bad? Healthy or unhealthy for the participants?
>If we take out the word "exploit", what are these "tolerable limits" of productive use you're pointing to?
Business transactions fundamentally rely on the parties concerned coming to an agreement in order to proceed. If the parties are not in agreement, which is to say if the exploitation (aka the terms of the transaction) is not within "tolerable limits", the business transaction cannot proceed.
Therefore, and I reiterate: All business is about exploiting someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions. The only question is whether that exploitation is within tolerable limits.
>When pushed on why you think business is dangerous
> Trade is about exploiting someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions.
This is absolutely wrong, there is a whole field of economics studying trade and you should read at least about comparative advantage. In healthy economy trade is for mutual benefit.
Acting for your own benefit is not mutually exclusive with mutual benefit.
In fact, most business transactions are mutually beneficial through no particular impetus from the parties: One party gets whatever goods or services he needed/wanted, the other party gets whatever monies he needed/wanted; both parties are hopefully better off and happier than before.
I reiterate: Business is about exploiting someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions.
> I reiterate: Business is about exploiting someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions.
Given the controversy over the word "exploit", do you mind restating your belief without using the word "exploit" to make sure we all understand what you mean? Is this a fair restating?
> I reiterate: Business is about making productive use of someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions.
