this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
382 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59534 readers
3195 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
By "original Mechanical Turk", I am clearly referring to the chess player inside a box. It was a con because the system was presented as an automaton, when it is simply human labour.
And I am calling Amazon's "just walk out" service also a con because it was touted as automatic, even if also being mostly human labour.
I am not calling "Amazon's Mechanical Turk" a con. It is exploitative, as you said, but it is not a con. People know that it is human labour, and Amazon does not try to hide it.
Is this clear now?
Yep, thanks
The automated walk out service wasn't a con. It was a shortsighted, honestly s***** idea, that was never able to be brought past the human oversight stage.
Con requires intent. I'm absolutely certain they fully intended to make it a completely humanless system. They failed and drug their feet trying and now they've shut it down.
If it's a con, what's their long game? What are they gain from having humans watch the store remotely? Is it tech just so neat that they'll have a lot more shoppers than a regular store? Do they save so much in on-site staff that it's cheaper to run than a conventional store? There's no advantage here that would make it a worthwhile con. It's a failed moonshot that they ended up manning with people to see if they could make it work that's all.
Just because it was a failure doesn't make it a con.
On its own a failure is not a con. The con is to publicly pretend that the failure is not there.
And Amazon is clearly doing the later - read the quote from the spokesperson in the article, it boils down to "The system is automated! «Chrust us lol». The human labour there is just, for, uh... improvements!" Yeah, sure, and the 1770 machine is totally automated too, the chess player there is just the maintenance worker /s
No, what makes it a con is that it was purported to be automated, but the automation was a failure and had to be done by humans almost 3/4 of the time.
No, that makes it a failure.
That's not what a con is. A con is a deliberate scam. Amazon's automated checkout simply didn't function as effectively as intended. They presumably lost money on the venture because the automation was unreliable. Nothing about this situation was a deliberate attempt to pay over 1,000 employees to check an automated system's work.
The Mechanical Turk is an interesting story and I'm glad you linked it, but it's not all that similar.