Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Hey Number 17 '

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 168 posts

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#61

Post by krunck »

"Optifye.ai, launched by Duke University computer science students Baid and Mohta, is backed by Y Combinator, according to the company’s site. On their Y Combinator company profile, they write that both of their families run manufacturing plants, where they’ve been exposed to factory working conditions since they were children. “I've been around assembly lines for as long as I can remember,” Baid wrote.

Mohta wrote, “My family also runs several manufacturing plants in various industries, which has given me unrestricted access to assembly lines since I was 15.” "

So these guys come from families that run factories and manage workers. They NEVER worked in one themselves. It's their turn to sit in the factory for 12 hour a day, 5+ days a week and have AI assisted asses badgering them all day.

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#62

Post by philistine »

some_random wrote: post #38

I'm shocked that anyone here is confused as to why this is controversial, to use a popular twitter phrase they were completely "mask off" on what they intended their tech to be used for. The demo was for a garment manufacturing sweatshop in which they identified a slow employee, called him by a number, and humiliated him, stopping just short of recommending a "corrective action". This easily could have been spun in a…

To top it off, there is an upcoming movie with a lot of buzz called Mickey 17 about the dehumanization of a clone in a dystopic future where humans are replaceable. It's an insidious coincidence. I immediately thought 404 Media were talking about that movie before reading the article.

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#63

Post by some_random »

neilv wrote: post #57
some_random wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand where you're coming from but that demo video makes it very, very clear that the founders knew exactly how it was going to be used and explicitly approved. It is completely unambiguous that they have zero regard for natural human empathy and caring, and view slow factory workers as worthy of humiliation and punishment.

I actually assume that this tech will almost immediately be used worse than in the video skit. If anything, I think they're unaware or sugar-coating it, but not doing a great PR job of that for US audiences.

I don't understand how you could come to that conclusion, they are referring to a sweatshop employee by a number and humiliating him for bad performance to the audience. How much more explicit would their demo have to be in order for you to believe they understand how their tech will be used?

Edit: They know exactly what they are doing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43175023#43176516

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#64

Post by tqi »

some_random wrote: post #38

I'm shocked that anyone here is confused as to why this is controversial, to use a popular twitter phrase they were completely "mask off" on what they intended their tech to be used for. The demo was for a garment manufacturing sweatshop in which they identified a slow employee, called him by a number, and humiliated him, stopping just short of recommending a "corrective action". This easily could have been spun in a…

FWIW, I think people are getting confused because this is framed as a technology story, not a story about the inhumane conditions in sweatshops. I feel like this framing is common in a lot of news stories (big tech being the villain du jour), and is unhelpful because it causes folks who otherwise agree with each other to fixate on the "is technology bad or is it neutral" angle, which gets in the way of any actual agreement or progress.

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#65

Post by Workaccount2 »

Here is a painful truth that I would venture that 95%+ of people don't know. In fact when I learned it, removing this small block of knowledge from my head toppled an entire ideological castle I had lived in until that point.

Low wage labor is not very valuable at all, and has very low margins on it. The gap between "profitable worker" and "unprofitable worker" is the absolute smallest at the bottom. These workers keep almost all value they create and are never in a position to generate massive value. They are perpetually right on the threshold of being unprofitable to employ.

So the problem then becomes "How do you keep a worker above that profitability threshold when they are barely above it?". You can have kludgey borderline inhumane approaches like this, or maybe try to use perks as coercion to hit targets, but not matter what it's a very difficult problem to solve.

Everyone jumps to "Pay them more" but almost everyone is unaware (and certainly unwilling) that that would necessitate cutting money from their checks to buffer the profitability threshold of these bottom tier workers.

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#67

Post by RIMR »

ChrisArchitect wrote: post #35

[dupe] Lots of discussion earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43170850

Not a dupe.

The last thread was just someone drawing attention to what they saw. This thread is in response to an investigative piece by 404 Media.

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#68

Post by makeitdouble »

karel-3d wrote: post #27
pzmarzly wrote: post #22

I know some people working in low-cost sweatshops, where human labour is cheaper than automation, everyone is told they can be replaced within days, and the few machines you may find are usually older than the employees (or better yet, contractors) operating them. Every sweatshop like that has high turnover rates, and micromanaging bosses that... let's say make sure these rates don't fall. If these bosses are the tar…

well the iPhones won't make themselves

I was wondering how many humans still touch an iPhone during it's production in a Foxconn factory.

Looking at this 2023 article[0], a lot. 35000 workers on three factories in India, solely dedicated to produce recent gen iPhones, with depcting of manual assembly down to screwing parts. I was expecting they automatized a lot more.

https://restofworld.org/2023/foxconn-india-iphone-factory/

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#69

Post by hector126 »

> Mohta wrote, “My family also runs several manufacturing plants in various industries, which has given me unrestricted access to assembly lines since I was 15.”

Color me not remotely surprised.

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#70

Post by itronitron »

phillipcarter wrote: post #18

Consider nearly any professional sports team and the relative effort that athletes put in. There's very little disagreeing on objectives our outcomes (score/prevent points, win games) and incentives are directly tied to this (win more games, get more money). And yet when you listen to what some of the highest-performing athletes say, they'll readily admit they don't go 100% effort 100% of the time. In fact, that's of…

It's a general rule in operations management that you never run at more than 80% of your productive capacity. The extra 20% 'slack' is there to be used to ensure your throughput remains steady.
Post reply on HN