Comment by rramadass | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rramadass | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You stated an opinion but i gave you hard data by pointing you to a documentary which you are refusing to watch. You have not even read the description for the video which gives you a ToC with timestamps to jump to for the major themes. I can point you to lots of relevant data on the web but the onus of educating yourself is on you.

If you had just spent 5-10mins watching excerpts from above timestamps you would have seen interviews with workers doing such jobs from rural America/Canada/Spain/France/etc., sleazeball CEOs of sleazy companies taking these sort of contracts from Facebook/etc. and then farming it off to poorer parts of the World in Asia/Africa/South America/etc., psychologists who study and warn of the very real dangers of such a job etc.

So before asking for more data, start with the one i have already given you. The psychological harm caused by repeated exposure to graphic imagery is well studied; AI image annotation is one subset of that.

Here is a detailed article; The Ghosts in the Machine: Inside AI’s Hidden Human Trauma - https://www.thebrink.me/the-ghosts-in-the-machine-inside-ai-...

From the article you linked:

"Some workers report nightmares in which the violent images they reviewed replay in gruesome loops. Others experience intrusive flashbacks while riding the bus or shopping for groceries. Over time, many describe a numbing of their emotions-a flattening of joy, sorrow, or empathy-because the only way to cope is to feel nothing at all."

and bla bla bla. "Some", "Others", "many"... Wikipedia itself couldn't generate a better example of "weasel words". Like I said, we all know some people are traumatized, but all that matters is the amount. What if some is less than 1%? Less than 5%? More than 50%? The answer matters, but you are not providing answers to this.

Also, learn to basic science. Anecdotes are not data.

No, I am not watching a documentary for a collection of anecdotes, I clearly explained why documentaries don't count as serious sources of info when trying to accurately quantify things.

EDIT: And if you really know that traumatization from images on computer screens is "well-studied", you can surely link to one to three of such studies, rather than lame documentaries telling cherry-picked sob-stories.

Your opinions have no basis in facts; talking about quantitative statistics without having any idea of the raw data is ignorance. The documentary/article point you to such data. The article in particular has links to others including the book Ghost Work - https://ghostwork.info/ which contains lots of data. AI content annotation falls under this umbrella.

I had already mentioned that graphic imagery causing psychological harm is well studied. Psychologists call it Secondary Trauma with symptoms similar to PTSD (which you have helpfully noted above) - https://www.ptsduk.org/secondary-trauma/?ref=thebrink.me

In fact, Facebook was taken to court over this, forced to acknowledge the harm done and paid out a hefty amount;

Facebook will pay $52 million in settlement with moderators who developed PTSD on the job - https://archive.is/M4tdk#selection-1487.0-1487.89

A simple google search would have given you any number of articles/papers on the subject. But instead of educating yourself, you are merely asking to be spoon-fed.

Nevertheless, start here (two broad classes of graphic imagery);

It matters what you see: Graphic media images of war and terror may amplify distress - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2318465121

Pornography Consumption and Cognitive-Affective Distress - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10399954/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com