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

81–90 of 168 posts

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#81

Post by jrussino »

krunck wrote: post #61

"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,…

> 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.

I'm reminded of this famous Jefferson quote:

"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."

I think it's natural for us to want to climb ever-higher on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and I think that's essentially what Jefferson was expressing.

But there's a perverse version of this that happens in our society, because for so many of us life gets framed as a ladder or a hill you have to climb, and your position feels so very precarious - no matter where you start or how high you climb!

And so we see certain work as "beneath our station". I don't want to make assumptions about what's in the hearts of these particular founders, but I've met plenty who grow to see even the work of their own parents as beneath them, because no matter how high you started, it's a failure if you ever slip below.

For so many of us, being in a position to own and operate multiple manufacturing plants would afford us a life of relative luxury and status beyond what we imagine we could realistically achieve. But to someone who can practically inherit that position by default, even that isn't enough. They need to automate it away, to build a larger empire, to take another step up the wealth and status ladder.

I'm not sure exactly how to criticize this. I agree with the spirit of that Jefferson quote. I often think of my own life and the lives of my kids through the lens of Maslow's hierarchy. I think maybe the problem is that the material wealth and social status that get used as a ruler for measuring a "good life" have become so incredibly de-coupled from actually doing good work and/or being a good person.

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#82

Post by [deleted] »

theamk wrote: post #44
Etheryte wrote: post #15

This is exactly why we need regulations that prohibit this. The upcoming EU regulations [0] seem to at least partially cover this, as employment is one of the high risk categories for AI systems. What that means in detail is still to be seen, but at least the groundwork is already there. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43152937

Will those regulations help with non-AI version of the same? If you want plot a worker's performance graphs (and fire them for underperformance), you don't need any AI or vision or even a computer, just a supervisor who manually counts the workers' outputs. "Hey number 17, how come you made only has 10 boxes this morning, while number 16's has made 25 boxes already. Work harder!" Unlike AI stuff, it will only be dail…

[deleted]

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#83

Post by madeofpalk »

tqi wrote: post #64
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 agr…

No, this framing is exactly right. It highlights how Y Combinator and tech companies are complicit in the inhumane conditions of sweatshops.

You don't get to create this product and then absolve yourself of its negative impact of it.

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#84

Post by [deleted] »

GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #42
beepbooptheory wrote: post #29

You could stick to your guns and defend the company your supposed to be supporting, you could not fund these people to begin with, or you could admit a mistake and be honest that it was one. To not do any of these seems like the absolute worst. Morality aside, you'd think YC would at least enough money to hire a good PR person to respond to a reporter with something at all for moments like these! You gotta really won…

It should come as a surprise to nobody that a venture capital firm is Bad, Actually.

[deleted]

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#85

Post by morkalork »

some_random wrote: post #72
krunck wrote: post #61

"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,…

Glad to see that their mandatory ethics and liberal arts classes have instilled empathetic and humanist values in them.

Well you know what they say, you can lead a horse to water

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#86

Post by minimaxir »

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…

> This easily could have been spun in a positive light

A common trend among techies nowadays is doing marketing themselves as a part of personal branding, and then figuring out why marketing departments exist the hard way. The possibility of unforseen consequences is very high.

If I ever create a startup I'll shut down all my social media and hire a community manager first, just to be safe. And I don't plan on creating a dystopian startup.

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#87

Post by itronitron »

some_random wrote: post #52
neilv wrote: post #40

I disapprove of this application (knowing how these things will be used), but I hesitate to condemn whomever worked on it, without knowing more. A few background thoughts... I remember browsing angel.co, and most of the startup blurbs were just depressing -- either crypto scams, or people who sounded unaware that they were doing something bad for society. Many worse-sounding than this one. So depressing, that even Li…

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.

"they're not confessing, they're bragging"

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#88

Post by silisili »

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…

Good suggestions. That would have completely reframed it in a more positive light. Even if staying on the 'worker' aspect, if they at least pretended to empathize, asked what's wrong/what they need, etc, could have put a tiny tinge of heartwarming on it.

But no, right to insults and presumably firing right after the clip ended. Why would any VC company knowingly go near this with a 10 ft pole?

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#89

Post by itronitron »

adocomplete wrote: post #2

I don't think the issue is necessarily the tool, but rather the execution. I think everybody can agree that improving efficiency is a good thing, and tools to track/improve it are a net benefit, but the way they approached it was abhorrent. But seriously, who approved posting that (before it was deleted)?

Improving efficiency in a system generally reduces it's resilience, so improving efficiency is definitely not always a good thing.

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#90

Post by wegfawefgawefg »

silisili wrote: post #88
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…

Good suggestions. That would have completely reframed it in a more positive light. Even if staying on the 'worker' aspect, if they at least pretended to empathize, asked what's wrong/what they need, etc, could have put a tiny tinge of heartwarming on it. But no, right to insults and presumably firing right after the clip ended. Why would any VC company knowingly go near this with a 10 ft pole?

to make money
Post reply on HN