because we shouldn’t be humanizing AI while depersonalizing the actual people who use stuff, according to MIT Technology Review.
because we shouldn’t be humanizing AI while depersonalizing the actual people who use stuff, according to MIT Technology Review.
no captcha annoyance
https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/04/19/1090872/ai-users-people-terms/
I’m pretty sure the article is paywalled, which is why I used an archive link. Also, archive.today is notorious for using an endless captcha against people who use a Cloudflare DNS because archive.today wants to redirect you to a server with capacity based on approximate IP location. I should’ve used web.archive but only archive.today is supported by this really convenient extension to get an archive link.
I saw no paywall, maybe thanks to some uBO config
I’d attribute it to the bypass paywalls extension, which was taken down from GitHub last week
i’m not using it
The authors only other article was two years ago about psychedelics…
And from as far as I could make it I to this one, it sounds like she’s been on them continuously.
It’s just such a stupid thing to get upset and write about.
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.
…
why use more char when few char do trick
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.
I think they mean UX, as in user experience. So, a UXer is someone who works in that field.
UXers aren’t users. I’m talking about the designers
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.
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”.