On: Underage workers are training AI

[mattdeboard]

“Exploitation” has (at least) two meanings: 1. treating someone unfairly for one’s own benefit 2. make use of & benefit from some resource

Are you sure this labor pool isn’t being exploited?

[lucaspm98 → mattdeboard]

The first definition is the inherently negative common usage when applied to person-to-person or entity-to-person relationships.

Applying the second definition to the labor market would mean every worker is being exploited, because no profit-seeking corporation (or resource efficient government program) would keep a workforce that is a net loss to the organization.

[mattdeboard → lucaspm98]

> Applying the second definition to the labor market would mean every worker is being exploited

No, it means the labor side of the labor market is being exploited by capital. It means the capital side of the labor market is being exploited by labor. And yeah, that’s an accurate and correct use of “exploit.”

[LewisVerstappen → mattdeboard]

> “Exploitation” has (at least) two meanings: 1. treating someone unfairly for one’s own benefit 2. make use of & benefit from some resource

When you're referring to two people, then exploited always refers to definition 1.

Have you ever heard anyone say "I exploited my employee" in a context where they're referring to definition 2?

If you're talking about mineral deposits or something, then sure... you can apply definition 2. "The company exploited the ore's rich iron deposits".

[mattdeboard → LewisVerstappen]

Labor is a resource. That’s why the phrase “human resources” exists.

Your contention that “exploitation” can’t refer to labor is a political construction, not a rational one.

[LewisVerstappen → mattdeboard]

Well, my suggestion is to avoid using terms with multiple meanings in a position where it can easily be construed in a different way then you intend.

[pjscott → mattdeboard]

Employers are, indeed, making use of and benefiting from their employees. And vice versa. But so what? If they didn't benefit, they wouldn't bother.

[mattdeboard → pjscott]

> so what

Indeed, so what?