because we shouldn’t be humanizing AI while depersonalizing the actual people who use stuff, according to MIT Technology Review.

  • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    Are you claiming that the many UXers cited within the article, including the one who invented the term, have been on psychedlics as well? Sure, it’s a small issue, but that doesn’t negate it.

        • nyan@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Exact same number of characters (5), and “UXers” requires pressing the shift key while “users” doesn’t. So it’s a fail from the typing efficiency point of view.

    • Dave.@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Excuse me, “UXers” is not the preferred term any more. You should be using “HXers”, as per the article.

      In my opinion, replacing “users” with “humans” feels wrong in much the same way as when incels replace “women” with “females”.

      They are reducing the accuracy of the description. All users of computers can generally be assumed to be human. All humans cannot generally be assumed to also be users.

      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Firstly the article doesn’t advocate for using “humans” instead; in fact, it devotes half of the two sentences for the term to guess why that term would be off-putting. The article includes suggestions of “people” and “interactors”. Secondly I posted this solely because I found its arguments interesting. I’m neutral on the term, same as “master”.