4 ms·
It's hard for me to understand why the fact that Google's autoreply exists is objectionable. If you don't like the response, don't use it. Nobody is the poorer.
by vonnik 8y ago
It's hard for me to understand why the fact that Google's autoreply exists is objectionable. If you don't like the response, don't use it. Nobody is the poorer. For those looking at a more nuanced critique, the Baffler published this:
https://thebaffler.com/latest/nudging-the-lexicon-haigney https://thebaffler.com/latest/nudging-the-lexicon-haigney
I think it captures the effects of autoreply more accurately, at least the effects of a writer living outside of Silicon Valley.
While Google's suggestions may often be off-base, they are also often reasonable, but they may shift your register a little. That is, they are designed for people using email to make quick decisions and respond in a professional way.
- icebraining 8y agoI'm curious, how do you see that critique as materially different? Seems to make the same two points, the influence on human language and its role in strengthening Google's data dominance.
- SamBam 8y agoPeople can object to auto-reply's contribution to the degradation of conversations, even if they, themselves, don't use it. That was the topic of about half the article.
- A2017U1 8y agoI've gotten email responses that look like a suggested autoreply and it makes me judge the person and value of the conversation. The person may have typed it but it comes across that way. Happy to use an email provider that doesn't have a bot reading my mail.
- fipple 8y agoThe suggestions probably come from people’s email, so as the system gets better, you’ll be judging someone just because Gmail later plagiarized them.