Headline implies there’s something negative here, but I’m not seeing it. Was OpenAI supposed to hire high-skill workers in developed countries to do this work?
As another poster said- in Kenya a job is a job and they still paid above average. Money going to Kenya is a good thing. They are doing the work so it must be worth it.
> Almost more interesting in that article I found that Sama, the Kenyan company, was also asked to collect CP and brutal/gore images for OpenAI. After delivering 1400 images, Sama cancelled the contract as this was even too much for them. OpenAI then talked about "miscommunication" and they actually did not really want those CP images. Well, they made its own category for it and asked Sama to collect images of several other categories, but somehow it was lost in communication that for one of theses categories, no images should be collected. Because they are illegal. OpenAI swears they never opened the images they received (and paid for).
2. It says OpenAI "used" workers which has a negative connotation.
3. It is factually incorrect: OpenAI paid a vendor $12.50 per hour. It's unclear if they knew how much the actual workers were paid.
4. It used a negative framing implying ChatGPT is toxic.
So something like
"OpenAI vendor paid Kenyan workers above median wage to make ChatGPT more safe"
"Kenyan workers helped make OpenAI's ChatGPT less toxic"
"OpenAI paid Kenyan workers minimum wage to work on ChatGPT"
Many different things are objectively true, but of course they mention the pay, because they know that to most of their "Western" readers it sounds outrageous.
Regardless, I should have included the phrase "depictions of" or similar.
If they're not properly novel then it depends on what the source images were, I guess? But it's not like you'd need to train it on anything obscene for it to figure out how to combine bad things with nudity.
If someone agrees with your premise that "these days the human cost is just another cost", then it seems logical that a newspaper editor/author will shape the headline about economic suffering, instead of mental suffering.
By adding more information to the headline about "$2 per hour", it might make the discussion more confusing by much of the comments discussing the economic part. BUT, a clickbait-y title might increase the reach of the article.