It's obvious that the end comment from the reporter is untrue, since by no definition could the workers be said to be becoming "AI experts" even if this is for some a step towards doing more challenging jobs.
It feels like it could be a combination of the reporters lack of knowledge, sloppy phrasing and getting carried away withthe enthusiasm with the situation.
Matt Taibbi -
"As it turns out, there is a utility in keeping us divided. As people, the more separate we are, the more politically impotent we become. This is the second stage of the mass media deception originally described in Manufacturing Consent. First, we’re taught to stay within certain bounds, intellectually. Then, we’re all herded into separate demographic pens, located along different patches of real estate on the spectrum of permissible thought. Once safely captured, we’re trained to consume the news the way sports fans do. We root for our team, and hate all the rest. Hatred is the partner of ignorance, and we in the media have become experts in selling both."
You should at least try to come up with an alternative headline that conveys to the average reader what is happening here, because "labeling data for machine learning" is not something that works either.
"Poor Kenyans are training A.I. for big tech"
They are being paid to label data.