I think we need to reconsider the blanket conflation of "autistic" and "mentally disabled". Especially considering that one of the premises of this article is that autistic people are disproportionately capable of work in cyber security (which is a knowledge field).
Further, the proposal seems to amount to A) giving those autistic individuals with a propensity for cyber security a job and B) giving the support in dealing with the downsides of autism. It is hard to see where the "exploitation" is happening without arguing that all employee relationships are exploitative. I suppose you could argue that the fact that autistic people are underemployed means that we could pay them below market wages. However, even below market wages could still be very good wages (relative to other fields, we get paid very well); so this arguement would fall into the Copenhages Morality trap. [0] The proposal is also consistent with just paying them market wages, which avoid the problem entirely.
Further, the proposal seems to amount to A) giving those autistic individuals with a propensity for cyber security a job and B) giving the support in dealing with the downsides of autism. It is hard to see where the "exploitation" is happening without arguing that all employee relationships are exploitative. I suppose you could argue that the fact that autistic people are underemployed means that we could pay them below market wages. However, even below market wages could still be very good wages (relative to other fields, we get paid very well); so this arguement would fall into the Copenhages Morality trap. [0] The proposal is also consistent with just paying them market wages, which avoid the problem entirely.
[0] https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...