3 ms·

> so maybe the rule should be: if you use a human name for sw/hw solution, you should let it work only if it received the normal level of human empathy in commu

> so maybe the rule should be: if you use a human name for sw/hw solution, you should let it work only if it received the normal level of human empathy in communication I’m extremely opposed to this, although I wouldn’t be against it being an optional disabled-by-default feature. I like having a human name to speak too(something about it clicks better than “okay google”). If parents are struggling to teach their kids that people aren’t robots, perhaps the problem isn’t the technology, it’s the parents. The solution is not making it more inconvenient for me to play a song because I didn’t ask my phone as politely as I would a human.

forty 5y ago
I have a hard time imagining that "r2d2 play a song" is much more inconvenient than saying Alexa ;)
necovek 5y ago
It could be as simple as "Hey Amazon Echo, respond to 'Alexa' from now on." during setup. For Amazon, the goal is to build a brand with "Alexa" ("Alexa" is more recognizable than "Echo" to most people — which is what resulted in jokes coincidentally): requiring users to name their software assistant would not have ruined the experience for anyone. I don't have a smart speaker in my home, but personally I wouldn't care what the name is if I treated it as a "robot" as long as it flows off the tongue well. "Hey Q, start vacuuming" is perfectly fine to me. The best way to empathize is to imagine if it was your name given as the wake word for the product. To imagine the confusion and how quickly it gets old, you can also imagine it was "Nick".
Jenk 5y ago
Saying please to a device is no effort and always saying please is a better habit to learn than the alternative of forgetting to say please when speaking to a person. Imagine being upset that someone suggests you say please to Alexa.
- l33t2328 5y ago
  Saying please to a device is some effort I don’t want to have to do for it to work. I’m not mad about it, I’m saying it’s objectively a bad feature.
  - Jenk 5y ago
    > it’s objectively a bad feature. It's subjective, and no it isn't bad. Your argument is "I don't want to" and that is as far from objective as one can get. -- There is at least some logic presented for using Alexa as a tool for kids (and adults) to learn, practice, and habitualise their manners. That is an objective argument.
    - l33t2328 5y ago
      It’s objectively a bad feature because it requires the user to add extra steps to their input for no benefit.
      - Jenk 5y ago
        ... except for the benefit already explained and, seemingly, with zero detriment because you and the other "I don't want to say please" brigadiers haven't come up with anything.
        l33t2328 5y ago
        That “benefit” is tenuous at best. Making this feature mandatory or default would be an objective downgrade, but I’ll grant that it would be a solid optional feature.
  - necovek 5y ago
    Why do you want a device to have a name, let alone a human one, at all? Having no name at all is much better, and more in line with all the sci-fi we've been through. "Play music" is sufficient, and less work. It's up to the tool to figure out if you are talking to another person or not, of course.

forty 5y ago

I have a hard time imagining that "r2d2 play a song" is much more inconvenient than saying Alexa ;)

necovek 5y ago

It could be as simple as "Hey Amazon Echo, respond to 'Alexa' from now on." during setup. For Amazon, the goal is to build a brand with "Alexa" ("Alexa" is more recognizable than "Echo" to most people — which is what resulted in jokes coincidentally): requiring users to name their software assistant would not have ruined the experience for anyone. I don't have a smart speaker in my home, but personally I wouldn't care what the name is if I treated it as a "robot" as long as it flows off the tongue well. "Hey Q, start vacuuming" is perfectly fine to me. The best way to empathize is to imagine if it was your name given as the wake word for the product. To imagine the confusion and how quickly it gets old, you can also imagine it was "Nick".

Jenk 5y ago

Saying please to a device is no effort and always saying please is a better habit to learn than the alternative of forgetting to say please when speaking to a person. Imagine being upset that someone suggests you say please to Alexa.

l33t2328 5y ago
Saying please to a device is some effort I don’t want to have to do for it to work. I’m not mad about it, I’m saying it’s objectively a bad feature.
- Jenk 5y ago
  > it’s objectively a bad feature. It's subjective, and no it isn't bad. Your argument is "I don't want to" and that is as far from objective as one can get. -- There is at least some logic presented for using Alexa as a tool for kids (and adults) to learn, practice, and habitualise their manners. That is an objective argument.
  - l33t2328 5y ago
    It’s objectively a bad feature because it requires the user to add extra steps to their input for no benefit.
    - Jenk 5y ago
      ... except for the benefit already explained and, seemingly, with zero detriment because you and the other "I don't want to say please" brigadiers haven't come up with anything.
      - l33t2328 5y ago
        That “benefit” is tenuous at best. Making this feature mandatory or default would be an objective downgrade, but I’ll grant that it would be a solid optional feature.
- necovek 5y ago
  Why do you want a device to have a name, let alone a human one, at all? Having no name at all is much better, and more in line with all the sci-fi we've been through. "Play music" is sufficient, and less work. It's up to the tool to figure out if you are talking to another person or not, of course.