Parents of children called Alexa challenge Amazon(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Parents of children called Alexa challenge Amazon
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57680173
162 comments
See also "A Boy Named Sue".
Walker and Hummus?
Given the user name, I'm guessing "Reed". No idea about the other name though.
Flora would be my guess
Reed is a verb? And one of the first ones you learned?
I reckon Marmalade, with outside chance of QuinceJam
Could be Sabra?
[deleted]
"The word Alexa has become synonymous with servant or slave."
Perhaps this is the problem: we are basically teaching kids from an early age to demand things from X (Alexa, Siri...), where they start losing the sense of empathy.
Sure, you don't need to have empathy for software/hardware, and the use of a human name is a bit unfortunate, 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.
So, if it only played music on "Alexa, can you please play disco?", the cumbersomeness of the commands and the type of language ("please" implies that "no" is acceptable response) would likely stop the jokes.
A default mode should also include foul language filter (that you can disable, because swearing can be fun when done by responsible adults :D), which will explicitly deny performing an action ("Alexa, play this fucking song." — "Please watch your language"). IOW, there is no need for it to not be an education tool.
Perhaps this is the problem: we are basically teaching kids from an early age to demand things from X (Alexa, Siri...), where they start losing the sense of empathy.
Sure, you don't need to have empathy for software/hardware, and the use of a human name is a bit unfortunate, 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.
So, if it only played music on "Alexa, can you please play disco?", the cumbersomeness of the commands and the type of language ("please" implies that "no" is acceptable response) would likely stop the jokes.
A default mode should also include foul language filter (that you can disable, because swearing can be fun when done by responsible adults :D), which will explicitly deny performing an action ("Alexa, play this fucking song." — "Please watch your language"). IOW, there is no need for it to not be an education tool.
Or perhaps it may teach kids the opposite: to understand the meaning of kind words: "please" is used only when interacting with humans because humans have emotions, and machines do not.
If one says "please" automatically in every situation even when talking to speech recognition software, it is possible they don't mean it when they talk to humans.
If one says "please" automatically in every situation even when talking to speech recognition software, it is possible they don't mean it when they talk to humans.
> "please" is used only when interacting with humans because humans have emotions, and machines do not.
Maybe I'm the weird one here but I sometimes say "please" to my computer and mean it. I sometimes do that with objects too. It isn't some deep belief or anything like that, but just something I do because I like to show empathy for objects that have served me well.
Maybe I'm the weird one here but I sometimes say "please" to my computer and mean it. I sometimes do that with objects too. It isn't some deep belief or anything like that, but just something I do because I like to show empathy for objects that have served me well.
Pleading with a crashed kernel is the closest I've ever gotten to begging mercy from God. (And just about as useless).
I talk a lot to my programs but I don't expect anything, it's just a thing I do for myself. Probably a consequence of the pandemic and having spent a lot of time alone with my computer.
Just teach them to say please to Alexa et Al. Much easier and generally better to be polite when you don't need to be, than to be impolite when you're supposed to be, by mistake.
This is a terrible idea. Children should never be trained to be "polite" to machines. Nor to treat them like people, nor to take orders from them.
Interactions with software are a really bad proxy for teaching kids how to behave around other humans.
Interactions with software are a really bad proxy for teaching kids how to behave around other humans.
In the face of the alternative being "it's ok to be a dick sometimes, kids".. no. Say please.
You've not presented any kind of argument. "This is a terrible idea" .. why?
You've not presented any kind of argument. "This is a terrible idea" .. why?
I thought the arguments would be obvious to a programmer, but if you insist...
First off, everyone deserves basic respect and to be treated with dignity. Animals deserve respect and dignity as well (although we don't say "please" and "thank you" to them - I'll get to that in a moment). But you said "everything" deserves respect. That is not true.
You don't teach politeness, or manners, or anything else, as a series of actions to repeat unthinkingly. You teach by forcing them to consider the reasons for doing certain things. There are obvious reasons to be polite to other people. First of all, other people understand what "please" means. Animals don't, and computers aren't sentient. But over-archingly, the value behind treating others with respect and animals with dignity is that life has value. Degrading other living things is ultimately degrading ourselves. If we don't treat them with dignity, what can we expect in return?
Now, if you want to argue that Amazon Alexa is a sentient being worthy of polite respect, that would be a different question. But the argument against teaching a child to be respectful to a machine goes beyond just the obvious dystopian implications. The ultimate reason it's a bad idea is that like any form of obedience training that leads to irrational outcomes, it is ultimately rejected and ignored, because the logic and rules behind it were not inculcated, only the actions.
To sum up: You don't teach rules by teaching how to follow them. You teach rules by teaching why they exist, and when to apply them. A child who says "please" and "thank you" to a machine has not learned any values or learned the point of why we say those things to each other. In fact, it makes the words meaningless. If all you want is obedience and you think your kid isn't bright enough to learn when and when not to apply certain behaviors, then you can try a shotgun approach, but you won't end up with someone capable of thinking for themselves. To me, raising an autonomous person capable of making judgments about new situations is the goal of child-rearing, but then again, I'm not an authoritarian.
[edited for typos]
First off, everyone deserves basic respect and to be treated with dignity. Animals deserve respect and dignity as well (although we don't say "please" and "thank you" to them - I'll get to that in a moment). But you said "everything" deserves respect. That is not true.
You don't teach politeness, or manners, or anything else, as a series of actions to repeat unthinkingly. You teach by forcing them to consider the reasons for doing certain things. There are obvious reasons to be polite to other people. First of all, other people understand what "please" means. Animals don't, and computers aren't sentient. But over-archingly, the value behind treating others with respect and animals with dignity is that life has value. Degrading other living things is ultimately degrading ourselves. If we don't treat them with dignity, what can we expect in return?
Now, if you want to argue that Amazon Alexa is a sentient being worthy of polite respect, that would be a different question. But the argument against teaching a child to be respectful to a machine goes beyond just the obvious dystopian implications. The ultimate reason it's a bad idea is that like any form of obedience training that leads to irrational outcomes, it is ultimately rejected and ignored, because the logic and rules behind it were not inculcated, only the actions.
To sum up: You don't teach rules by teaching how to follow them. You teach rules by teaching why they exist, and when to apply them. A child who says "please" and "thank you" to a machine has not learned any values or learned the point of why we say those things to each other. In fact, it makes the words meaningless. If all you want is obedience and you think your kid isn't bright enough to learn when and when not to apply certain behaviors, then you can try a shotgun approach, but you won't end up with someone capable of thinking for themselves. To me, raising an autonomous person capable of making judgments about new situations is the goal of child-rearing, but then again, I'm not an authoritarian.
[edited for typos]
> You don't teach politeness, or manners, or anything else, as a series of actions to repeat unthinkingly.
Yes you do. Everyone and everything is deserving of respect at all times, especially the ones/things you disagree with, or dislike. The same is of every thing from animals to material objects, lest they wantonly waste and/or damage stuff.
This is why _every_ democracy in the world demands their politicians act with respect to their opposition. Some honor these rules more than others, yes, before you quote some breakdown of the process somewhere.
Which renders the rest of your post pointless nonsense.
Yes you do. Everyone and everything is deserving of respect at all times, especially the ones/things you disagree with, or dislike. The same is of every thing from animals to material objects, lest they wantonly waste and/or damage stuff.
This is why _every_ democracy in the world demands their politicians act with respect to their opposition. Some honor these rules more than others, yes, before you quote some breakdown of the process somewhere.
Which renders the rest of your post pointless nonsense.
Political opposition is human. And there again the principle is human-to-human behavior. Do you thank your front door for unlocking? If not, does that mean you're wantonly damaging it? No. It's not sentient.
My door doesn't speak so is incomparable to Alexa. I do treat it, and every other door I meet, with respect though.
You sure aren't shy of expending the effort to rationalize your decision to be be a baseline dick, reserving politeness for special circumstance, on the internet to strangers.
You sure aren't shy of expending the effort to rationalize your decision to be be a baseline dick, reserving politeness for special circumstance, on the internet to strangers.
So if your toaster started talking you would treat it like a person? It's not about being a baseline dick at all. I could be baseline the nicest guy you ever met. I take the time to make the point because I believe teaching unthinking compliance with senseless rules - in the guise of "respect for everything" no less - is ugly, disrespectful of thought and actually immoral. It's also highly contrary to a coder's ethos.
> So if your toaster started talking you would treat it like a person?
Strawman.
> unthinking compliance with senseless
Neither unthinking nor senseless.
> ugly, disrespectful of thought and actually immoral
Absolute hogwash. What terrible reasoning you're just now coming up with.
Strawman.
> unthinking compliance with senseless
Neither unthinking nor senseless.
> ugly, disrespectful of thought and actually immoral
Absolute hogwash. What terrible reasoning you're just now coming up with.
> > So if your toaster started talking you would treat it like a person?
> Strawman.
You explicitly said the difference between Alexa and a toaster is that the toast doesn't speak. It's reasonable to assume that you believe that the difference between Alexa and a toaster is that the toast doesn't speak.
> > unthinking compliance with senseless
> Neither unthinking nor senseless.
Following rules you were taught without evaluating whether they actually make sense in context is the definition of unthinking.
> Absolute hogwash. What terrible reasoning you're just now coming up with.
That is disrespectful. I'm starting to believe you don't actually understand the concept of respect.
> Strawman.
You explicitly said the difference between Alexa and a toaster is that the toast doesn't speak. It's reasonable to assume that you believe that the difference between Alexa and a toaster is that the toast doesn't speak.
> > unthinking compliance with senseless
> Neither unthinking nor senseless.
Following rules you were taught without evaluating whether they actually make sense in context is the definition of unthinking.
> Absolute hogwash. What terrible reasoning you're just now coming up with.
That is disrespectful. I'm starting to believe you don't actually understand the concept of respect.
There's no such thing as being a dick to a voice assistant of this type.
Ja just ignore the obvious point of mistakenly being impolite to a person, eh?
How's that obvious? And does the rule of "be polite if it might be a person" not work?
Also it's pretty normal to phrase things less politely to close acquaintances a lot of the time, and that's not being a dick either. "Be polite all the time" is overkill.
Also it's pretty normal to phrase things less politely to close acquaintances a lot of the time, and that's not being a dick either. "Be polite all the time" is overkill.
> How's that obvious?
> Just teach them to say please to Alexa et Al. Much easier and generally better to be polite when you don't need to be, than to be impolite when you're supposed to be, by mistake.
> Just teach them to say please to Alexa et Al. Much easier and generally better to be polite when you don't need to be, than to be impolite when you're supposed to be, by mistake.
OTOH, this does highlight the "other people's children" barn door in your proposal
Does it? You sure?
"Be polite all of the time" has certainly been a lot easier to teach my own kids than "only be polite some of the time, because being polite all of the time is a bad thing"
It goes right up there with the philosophy of every thing deserves respect, even the things you don't like.
"Be polite all of the time" has certainly been a lot easier to teach my own kids than "only be polite some of the time, because being polite all of the time is a bad thing"
It goes right up there with the philosophy of every thing deserves respect, even the things you don't like.
You and I share these values, and that's how I teach my kid (not that we have voice assistants hanging around).
What I'm saying here is that you're teaching your values, but your values aren't universal. Other parents will teach their values, or simply set examples of behaviors that you disagree with. You can't simply solve the problem by teaching your kids. And if my experience is at all typical, your kid will also pick up values from those other people's kids.
What I'm saying here is that you're teaching your values, but your values aren't universal. Other parents will teach their values, or simply set examples of behaviors that you disagree with. You can't simply solve the problem by teaching your kids. And if my experience is at all typical, your kid will also pick up values from those other people's kids.
Ah, noted and agreed.
Just because it's easier to teach your kids how to conform and behave without thinking doesn't mean it's better for them, or for society, does it? The fact that it's easier probably means it's lazy and wrong.
There's no difference between telling children to always be polite to machines and telling children to always beware of foreigners. Both require obedience and shutting off critical insight. You are dehumanizing the world to them. This is why I took the time to write so many responses.
There's no difference between telling children to always be polite to machines and telling children to always beware of foreigners. Both require obedience and shutting off critical insight. You are dehumanizing the world to them. This is why I took the time to write so many responses.
Being polite is for my benefit, not the for machines’. It feels nice to be nice.
Politeness is a communications protocol for humans. It's as ridiculous to be polite to a machine as it would be to speak to people in assembly language.
No, it is more important to be able to express emotions in tone and word placement (the same word "please" have a spectre of meanings), and learning to use it is more important than learning to be formally polite.
For example, even without tone, there's quite significant difference between:
- Give me a pen please.
- Can you give me a pen please?
- Please give me a pen.
For example, even without tone, there's quite significant difference between:
- Give me a pen please.
- Can you give me a pen please?
- Please give me a pen.
Most politeness is feigned anyways, it still sounds nicer.
In your examples, if all 3 were said in the same, monotonous tone, 2 is much nicer to hear, especially compared to just 'give me a pen', which is how most people order food.
In your examples, if all 3 were said in the same, monotonous tone, 2 is much nicer to hear, especially compared to just 'give me a pen', which is how most people order food.
All of which you have to teach your kids anyway, and practicing with Alexa means you won't offend people as much whilst getting more practice. Win win.
No it’s not because Alexa does not provide feedback.
You can teach kids to mechanically pronounce correct words, but that is not hard, even a parrot can to do that. But teaching to express and recognize emotions is much harder and Alexa won’t help with that (may even do worse, although unlikely).
You can teach kids to mechanically pronounce correct words, but that is not hard, even a parrot can to do that. But teaching to express and recognize emotions is much harder and Alexa won’t help with that (may even do worse, although unlikely).
If you are suggesting to have Amazon Echo react only on polite tone too, that'd probably solve it too.
Oh sure, and it should also electroshock you if you use incorrect tone when you are trying to be polite.
"Speech recognition software" responds in a very humanly voice. It's the very reason people want software assistants to have human voices, even female voices, because it makes them feel more at ease. And we don't have those sat-nav assistants saying things like "you made a mistake and missed your turn", even though we know they are robots and that might be a fact. So we are making computers behave like humans, but you then need to know the difference... how?
If there was an option to have an air traffic controller's voice for turn by turn navigation, I would enable that.
> "Speech recognition software" responds in a very humanly voice.
Speech recognition software responds to any voice it was trained to. It will respond to dog barking or morse code it there will be a demand.
It responds to "humanly" speech, but it likely mostly ignores the tone. (Although, I imagine eventually Alexa will learn to start different music depending on the tone of the person asking to play the music.)
> It's the very reason people want software assistants to have human voices, even female voices, because it makes them feel more at ease.
No, it's different reason. Human to assistant and assistant to human is not symmetrical.
It's hard to retrain humans to respond to a different form of speech, but it's easy to retrain the model to whatever is needed/used by users.
Speech recognition software responds to any voice it was trained to. It will respond to dog barking or morse code it there will be a demand.
It responds to "humanly" speech, but it likely mostly ignores the tone. (Although, I imagine eventually Alexa will learn to start different music depending on the tone of the person asking to play the music.)
> It's the very reason people want software assistants to have human voices, even female voices, because it makes them feel more at ease.
No, it's different reason. Human to assistant and assistant to human is not symmetrical.
It's hard to retrain humans to respond to a different form of speech, but it's easy to retrain the model to whatever is needed/used by users.
Just because Alexa is not human doesn't mean I have to discard my humanity when I interact with it.
In our house, we changed the device's wake word to 'computer' as it is one of the alternatives. It's OK to demand things without saying please to a computer.
"Computer, play my music".
"Computer, play my music".
Something like that needs to be the default tbough.
The existence of an alternative setting, and the fact that one family even used it, does not address the problem that now teenage boys probably say "Alexa suck my ..." to 12 year old girls.
What Amazon has done is created a part of everyones environment.
Many companies have done that by now. Have been ever since industrialization and mass prduction not just internet related things.
To me, that comes with some responsibility. We just have no formal system for recognizing and codifying that responsibility. Most of our capitalism rules are still based around a shop owner.
A local barber shop can name a new hair style anything they want, because even if it's somehow harmful, only a few people are ever exposed to it.
But ever since Ford and Kraft etc, private companies have created things which become part of the environment of everyone in a whole country or even the whole world.
We did codify some of that responsibility in the form of some basic safety standards and cencorship on the old pre-cable public tv and radio spectrum. Something like a name? It's hard to say how that should be handled, but I think we haven't even tried to consider it as a question yet, let alone answer it.
The existence of an alternative setting, and the fact that one family even used it, does not address the problem that now teenage boys probably say "Alexa suck my ..." to 12 year old girls.
What Amazon has done is created a part of everyones environment.
Many companies have done that by now. Have been ever since industrialization and mass prduction not just internet related things.
To me, that comes with some responsibility. We just have no formal system for recognizing and codifying that responsibility. Most of our capitalism rules are still based around a shop owner.
A local barber shop can name a new hair style anything they want, because even if it's somehow harmful, only a few people are ever exposed to it.
But ever since Ford and Kraft etc, private companies have created things which become part of the environment of everyone in a whole country or even the whole world.
We did codify some of that responsibility in the form of some basic safety standards and cencorship on the old pre-cable public tv and radio spectrum. Something like a name? It's hard to say how that should be handled, but I think we haven't even tried to consider it as a question yet, let alone answer it.
Names have been driven by cinema for a long time. The 1970 Jennifer boom is a famous example. This eventually led to a superabundance of Jennifers, and finally a crash.
https://nationalpost.com/news/the-jennifer-epidemic-how-the-...
https://nationalpost.com/news/the-jennifer-epidemic-how-the-...
Same here, because I wanted to feel like I was on Star Trek. Although it can get confused, given that I teach computer science and talk about it a lot.
If you use the word computer in ordinary conversation frequently enough though, this seems like it might become a little annoying :)
> you should let it work only if it received the normal level of human empathy in communication.
Empathy for things without feelings isn't possible at all. Being polite isn't equivalent to empathy.
It is often mistaken though. An American once told be the common stereotype of Canadians is wrong. They aren't nice, they are just polite. A joke of course, but I think we are responsible adults.
Empathy for things without feelings isn't possible at all. Being polite isn't equivalent to empathy.
It is often mistaken though. An American once told be the common stereotype of Canadians is wrong. They aren't nice, they are just polite. A joke of course, but I think we are responsible adults.
You are not showing me empathy in interpreting my comment :D
I did not ask for people to show empathy to machines, but to communicate in a way they would with humans they do have empathy for, to ensure they do that with other people. Because software is increasingly made to behave like humans (there is this soft female voice responding in natural sentences), it is getting easier to confuse the two.
As I said in another comment, it's quite similar to how machines do not correct us with "You stupid human, you missed the right turn there. Now I have to recalculate the route to your destination again wasting energy and polluting the Earth some more. And it'll be 4km longer!" (which I would love as a "hilarious mode" on my sat-nav) — at best, it's just "recalculating" or more usually, just silently accepting our stupidity.
Even simple "You missed the turn again" would frustrate half the drivers, I am sure. But they are just software stating facts, right, and they can't have empathy for us, so that should be ok?
I did not ask for people to show empathy to machines, but to communicate in a way they would with humans they do have empathy for, to ensure they do that with other people. Because software is increasingly made to behave like humans (there is this soft female voice responding in natural sentences), it is getting easier to confuse the two.
As I said in another comment, it's quite similar to how machines do not correct us with "You stupid human, you missed the right turn there. Now I have to recalculate the route to your destination again wasting energy and polluting the Earth some more. And it'll be 4km longer!" (which I would love as a "hilarious mode" on my sat-nav) — at best, it's just "recalculating" or more usually, just silently accepting our stupidity.
Even simple "You missed the turn again" would frustrate half the drivers, I am sure. But they are just software stating facts, right, and they can't have empathy for us, so that should be ok?
> You are not showing me empathy in interpreting my comment :D
Sorry, certainly guilty of that. It actually is interesting phenomena of internet comments and yes, I mostly sound quite abrasive when I reread my comments. I think this is a phenomenon of skipping empathy for internet comments in the believe that the other side won't take it personally anyway and it is mostly not meant to be antagonistic.
You are correct that it can have an impact on behavior because AIs are modeled to respond naturally and that it can have an effect on interpersonal communication. I think I need to print a t-shirt for when I visit an English speaking country: "Sorry for my expression, I learned English on the internet".
Sorry, certainly guilty of that. It actually is interesting phenomena of internet comments and yes, I mostly sound quite abrasive when I reread my comments. I think this is a phenomenon of skipping empathy for internet comments in the believe that the other side won't take it personally anyway and it is mostly not meant to be antagonistic.
You are correct that it can have an impact on behavior because AIs are modeled to respond naturally and that it can have an effect on interpersonal communication. I think I need to print a t-shirt for when I visit an English speaking country: "Sorry for my expression, I learned English on the internet".
Then you’re teaching them to communicate as if they have empathy without actually using empathy — which seems the precisely wrong lesson to learn.
I think it's generally extremely hard to teach people empathy (not just children). Basically, you do that through experience, not words.
Teaching them to be polite and to understand reasons for that is much simpler, and not mutually exclusive with teaching them empathy.
Teaching them to be polite and to understand reasons for that is much simpler, and not mutually exclusive with teaching them empathy.
I believe Star Trek solved this by saying "Computer ..."
> 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.
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.
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".
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".
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.
Imagine being upset that someone suggests you say please to Alexa.
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.
I’m not mad about it, I’m saying it’s objectively a bad feature.
> 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.
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.
It’s objectively a bad feature because it requires the user to add extra steps to their input for no benefit.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
Ah, if only all our problems could be solved by handwaving away the hard part (in this case, distinguishing commands directed at the machine from other speech, including voice lines on the TV).
There were several solutions presented earlier (do not use a human name, make every owner choose a name) that are possible right now and do not cause any of the issues a current choice has.
This was a proposal for where we should be going if we care about the even terser communication (which was the argument being made), and where ultimately, voice assistants are surely going (otherwise, if we do not develop speaker-recognition ["there are two persons talking, look for extra hints that message is aimed for me"] and tone recognition, home-integrated ones will soon be unlocking doors for thiefs who can shout "Alexa, unlock doors" or "open windows" loud enough, or, you know, using a loudspeaker).
This was a proposal for where we should be going if we care about the even terser communication (which was the argument being made), and where ultimately, voice assistants are surely going (otherwise, if we do not develop speaker-recognition ["there are two persons talking, look for extra hints that message is aimed for me"] and tone recognition, home-integrated ones will soon be unlocking doors for thiefs who can shout "Alexa, unlock doors" or "open windows" loud enough, or, you know, using a loudspeaker).
I have a hard time imagining that "r2d2 play a song" is much more inconvenient than saying Alexa ;)
This plays on the larger trend of erasing the border between machine and a living being.
Amazon's Alexa is a pretty dumb machine, but it has a name and a voice that makes it appear more human. I've heard about older people who interact with it using polite words non-ironically. I think it's been done deliberately, to make people relate to the product.
A different angle: humanoid robots in art are often put in the positions of servants (see Asimov, Ghost in the Shell). Servants were traditionally human (and sometimes treated like tools), erasing that boundary again. While we aren't there yet, we're working on it, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASIMO
I think it's the reduction of that boundary that causes people to be confused about whether they are talking to a living being or a dumb mechanism. (Tachikoma: "If we acted a little more robotic…")
Amazon's Alexa is a pretty dumb machine, but it has a name and a voice that makes it appear more human. I've heard about older people who interact with it using polite words non-ironically. I think it's been done deliberately, to make people relate to the product.
A different angle: humanoid robots in art are often put in the positions of servants (see Asimov, Ghost in the Shell). Servants were traditionally human (and sometimes treated like tools), erasing that boundary again. While we aren't there yet, we're working on it, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASIMO
I think it's the reduction of that boundary that causes people to be confused about whether they are talking to a living being or a dumb mechanism. (Tachikoma: "If we acted a little more robotic…")
You know that Alexa can be depersonalised by changing the wake word. "echo" and "computer" are the options last I checked. I recommend it.
> Sure, you don't need to have empathy for software/hardware
I'm not so sure that's true. Granted, I'm a confessed panpsychist so I have a predisposition towards this line of thinking, but I think how we relate to the objects that surround us is at least a little related to how we relate to people and animals around us too. As the objects around us are becoming more and more people-like, even if only aesthetically, I feel this will become even more true.
At the very least, maybe we should play it safe so they remember us as the polite ones when the inevitable AI rebellion occurs.
I'm not so sure that's true. Granted, I'm a confessed panpsychist so I have a predisposition towards this line of thinking, but I think how we relate to the objects that surround us is at least a little related to how we relate to people and animals around us too. As the objects around us are becoming more and more people-like, even if only aesthetically, I feel this will become even more true.
At the very least, maybe we should play it safe so they remember us as the polite ones when the inevitable AI rebellion occurs.
The human brain is leaky and fuzzy. Like you I believe that one's attitude towards a particular thing subconsciously affects their attitudes towards every thing. That's why one should strive to have a positive, universal attitude towards everything - including one's self.
[deleted]
I agree. I think a polite mode for Alexa would be great.
> Amazon says it is "saddened" by these accounts, and that alternative wake words are available.
That response is AMAZING. A boring dystopia indeed.
That said, I understand Amazon’s position. Seems a bit too-little-too-late. Interesting that we’ll be seeing an name go extinct due to a relatively minor “feature” of a technology.
That response is AMAZING. A boring dystopia indeed.
That said, I understand Amazon’s position. Seems a bit too-little-too-late. Interesting that we’ll be seeing an name go extinct due to a relatively minor “feature” of a technology.
It does show a bit of a lack of imagination that the engineers and product team at Amazon didn't realise the impact of using a human name for something you issue commands to. If it had to be a human name for whatever reason it would have at least made sense to choose one that's very unusual to minimize the effect.
On the other hand, Amazon Alexa is 8 years old, so if you have a 6 year old child called Alexa some of the responsibility has to be on the parents..
On the other hand, Amazon Alexa is 8 years old, so if you have a 6 year old child called Alexa some of the responsibility has to be on the parents..
> so if you have a 6 year old child called Alexa some of the responsibility has to be on the parents
Why should parents be expected to predict the future popularity of a major corporation's use of the same name?
Why should parents be expected to predict the future popularity of a major corporation's use of the same name?
Now no one is going to ever use name Alexa.
It didn't require any predictive skills. Amazon Alexa was already very popular in 2016. It only required choosing a name that wasn't being used in a product at the time.
I can't even imagine that they 'didn't realize'. They did, obviously, but couldn't care less. Their marketing wanted a human name so that it sounded approachable, so that's what they did.
Exactly. And I don't think anyone could have predicted that people will complain about it so late. But there are other issues that they probably didn't forsee. People have complained that they are all female as well, but I could see why an engineer would want to mimic Star Trek or didn't think in detail about giving it a gendered name and voice to start with.
Other voice assistants aren't as easy to pronounce as Alexa as well; Mycroft, Siri, Ok Google, Bixby.
Other voice assistants aren't as easy to pronounce as Alexa as well; Mycroft, Siri, Ok Google, Bixby.
So far in this whole thread I still haven't seen anyone mention Cortana, even in a list like yours that included Mycroft!
I don't know I just like the image of MS's product being that irrelevant.
I don't know I just like the image of MS's product being that irrelevant.
wait, Windows has a voice agent?
Other voice assistants aren't as easy to pronounce as Alexa as well; Mycroft, Siri, Ok Google, Bixby.
Those examples tell us that teams making these products do think about the impact of the name they choose if they're willing to accept something less "name like" will still work well, and maybe the Alexa team could have done better.
Those examples tell us that teams making these products do think about the impact of the name they choose if they're willing to accept something less "name like" will still work well, and maybe the Alexa team could have done better.
Siri is a common name in Norway and Sweden.
Much more common than Alexa.
Much more common than Alexa.
> On the other hand, Amazon Alexa is 8 years old, so if you have a 6 year old child called Alexa some of the responsibility has to be on the parents..
So, your mother's name was Alexandra, you decide to give that name to your daughter. But, no, because Amazon took ownership of that name.
There are things that people value when naming their children, that includes usually loved ones. Big corporations are not in the list of things to take into account. If it has to be now we are in a dark place.
So, your mother's name was Alexandra, you decide to give that name to your daughter. But, no, because Amazon took ownership of that name.
There are things that people value when naming their children, that includes usually loved ones. Big corporations are not in the list of things to take into account. If it has to be now we are in a dark place.
Did the engineers have any input in the name?
It certainly is surprising to me that kids would care. And then that they would think an AI product is a negative versus a positive or neutral example of the name. I thought bullies were more concerned with physical prowess or complexion or such things.
Maybe they should just deal with the bullies themselves rather than blaming 3rd parties for the insults bullies come up with.
It certainly is surprising to me that kids would care. And then that they would think an AI product is a negative versus a positive or neutral example of the name. I thought bullies were more concerned with physical prowess or complexion or such things.
Maybe they should just deal with the bullies themselves rather than blaming 3rd parties for the insults bullies come up with.
Did the engineers have any input in the name?
Of course they did. They could have raised it at any point. That would be input.
I think your question is really "Did the engineers have any real power over the name?". Obviously the final decision came down to someone who probably wasn't an engineer, but that doesn't mean the engineering team couldn't influence the outcome at all. Engineers can't abdicate all responsibility for the outcomes of their work simply because they don't make the final decision. Everyone on a project is responsible in some way for what happens as a result of it.
Of course they did. They could have raised it at any point. That would be input.
I think your question is really "Did the engineers have any real power over the name?". Obviously the final decision came down to someone who probably wasn't an engineer, but that doesn't mean the engineering team couldn't influence the outcome at all. Engineers can't abdicate all responsibility for the outcomes of their work simply because they don't make the final decision. Everyone on a project is responsible in some way for what happens as a result of it.
We aren't talking about engineers making advertising algorithms then washing their hands of them. It's quite common for engineers to develop a product using some code name, then hand it off to other groups such as marketing who decide what to call it after the fact. The engineers would have no idea whether it will be called "Alexa" or "XJ47B" and may even be long gone by the time it is decided anyway.
I think the question as I posed it works just fine. One simply needs a reasonable standard of what it means to have input. By your standard, everyone on earth had input since we all could have personally hounded Jeff Bezos with tweets or thrown ourselves in front of Amazon trucks as they tried to leave the warehouses. But certain employees were responsible for making these specific decisions on behalf of the company and those people may or may not have accepted input from employees. I suspect you already know what process is most likely to be in place at a large company like Amazon.
I think the question as I posed it works just fine. One simply needs a reasonable standard of what it means to have input. By your standard, everyone on earth had input since we all could have personally hounded Jeff Bezos with tweets or thrown ourselves in front of Amazon trucks as they tried to leave the warehouses. But certain employees were responsible for making these specific decisions on behalf of the company and those people may or may not have accepted input from employees. I suspect you already know what process is most likely to be in place at a large company like Amazon.
I'm in the UK and have never met someone called Alexa. Is it really a common name? Perhaps it is in the US, but it's not like Amazon chose a popular human name e.g. Sarah, Ben, etc.
Of all things I am suspicious of why they would choose a female name for an assistant.
Of all things I am suspicious of why they would choose a female name for an assistant.
> Sarah, Ben
Alexa is easy to recognize by software with very low error rate unlike Sarah or Ben.
> Of all things I am suspicious of why they would choose a female name for an assistant.
For the same reason airport announcements are usually voiced by women. For the same reason satnav is voiced by women. For the same reason language learning tapes are voiced by women. People (both men and women) are more comfortable listening to women.
I suspect you suspect it is because of assistant being women stereotype, not it's not that, and no need to look for social injustice everywhere.
Alexa is easy to recognize by software with very low error rate unlike Sarah or Ben.
> Of all things I am suspicious of why they would choose a female name for an assistant.
For the same reason airport announcements are usually voiced by women. For the same reason satnav is voiced by women. For the same reason language learning tapes are voiced by women. People (both men and women) are more comfortable listening to women.
I suspect you suspect it is because of assistant being women stereotype, not it's not that, and no need to look for social injustice everywhere.
If they had picked a male name they would have received complaints that it is sending a message that if you need help you should ask a man.
They are going to lose on that front no matter which way they go, so likely the best approach is to pick which works best technically. I'd expect that would be a female voice due to less low frequency components, making it easier to get it to sound good on a small speaker.
They are going to lose on that front no matter which way they go, so likely the best approach is to pick which works best technically. I'd expect that would be a female voice due to less low frequency components, making it easier to get it to sound good on a small speaker.
Around here it is a not too rare nickname for Alexandra.
Mine some times triggers on Alex and has gone off during a wfh call
The default wake word for these kinds of devices should just be 'computer'. It works fine for Star Trek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CDhEwhOm44
Alexa lets you do that, and it's fun until you accidentally trigger it during a meeting or phone call.
Google is worse here, you can't change the google wake word at all and I _hate_ having to say "hey google" whenever I wanna use it.
Google is worse here, you can't change the google wake word at all and I _hate_ having to say "hey google" whenever I wanna use it.
I mean, it's honest. Using a human voice suggests that you're talking to an individual, only to that one device next to you. Saying "Ok Google" makes it abundantly clear that you're feeding (and being fed by) a planetary-scale hive mind.
I switched to Alexa just because I hated saying hey google.
I do use the computer wake work and it’s indeed annoying but the fun makes it worth it for me lol
I do use the computer wake work and it’s indeed annoying but the fun makes it worth it for me lol
OTOH Star Trek has also doors that can read your mind. Notice how they never open until some character actually intends to go out. Now try that at your local mall! I fear that you'll be disappointed... But then considering when Star Trek is set, mind reading technology is perhaps not out of the question. After all AI face recognition is already fine tuned enough to see the difference between happy and sad people.
By the time of Voyager the ship is apparently able to constantly record the brainwave patterns of all crew members at all times as a background task. I surmise that this must be an evolution of the technology installed in doors to read people's intent to go through them which first came about some time before the Original Series.
how else would the computer know how to route shipboard communications before the interlocutor's name has been spoken.
I reckon machine learning could predict whether someone wants the door to open based on their motion, which way they are looking, what they are doing with their hands, etc.
Yes, most of the time people use Mac or PC or iPad rather than “Computer” - it would also be good for all devices to share the same disambiguation system that selects which device you want to answer - e.g. if your iphone is held up to your face and you say “computer tell me what LCARS is?” your Amazon Echo device doesn’t answer.
Association with Star Trek is only a selling point on HN.
It makes watching Star Trek more amusing.
been thinking that for years now.
> Parents of children called Alexa say their daughters are being bullied
This is, as they say now, disturbing and shocking.
First, if some child is chosen to be a target for bullying, then the name is just one of thousands reasons to do so. If it is not name, then something else, surname, dress style, hair color, birthmark, height, whatever. In a different situation the same name can a reason to be envy of that person name for example.
Second, likely these "parents" exaggerated the situation for their 15 seconds of fame: nobody is going to write an article about a child not being bullied about name "Alexa".
Third, this might be another sign of victimhood culture. They teach their children to be a victim and be proud of it instead of teaching their children how to defend themselves:
- Alexa, play disco - I'm sorry, I don't recognize your accent
- Alexa, play disco - La-la-la, there is a boy named George, he is not very smart, this is a disco song
- Alexa, play disco - Sure, it will cost you a quid
- Alexa, play disco - I didn't recognize the command, please repeat louder - Alexa, play disco - You are dumb, aren't you?
This is, as they say now, disturbing and shocking.
First, if some child is chosen to be a target for bullying, then the name is just one of thousands reasons to do so. If it is not name, then something else, surname, dress style, hair color, birthmark, height, whatever. In a different situation the same name can a reason to be envy of that person name for example.
Second, likely these "parents" exaggerated the situation for their 15 seconds of fame: nobody is going to write an article about a child not being bullied about name "Alexa".
Third, this might be another sign of victimhood culture. They teach their children to be a victim and be proud of it instead of teaching their children how to defend themselves:
- Alexa, play disco - I'm sorry, I don't recognize your accent
- Alexa, play disco - La-la-la, there is a boy named George, he is not very smart, this is a disco song
- Alexa, play disco - Sure, it will cost you a quid
- Alexa, play disco - I didn't recognize the command, please repeat louder - Alexa, play disco - You are dumb, aren't you?
While there is certainly a point to learning to deal with unwelcoming environment, you may be asking too much of kids (note that all the kids that can speak and understand language, including those from ages 2 to very sensitive teenage years, can be the butt of these jokes).
I also imagine that these kids do not have the experience of Alexa products because that would be very confusing at home, so they don't have the proper knowledge to come up with such "smart" jokes like you propose, esp at an early age.
And to top it off, that would only work in a regular setting where kids return to regularly (school, friends, family). In a playground where the kid is a new one, jokes will always restart.
I also imagine that these kids do not have the experience of Alexa products because that would be very confusing at home, so they don't have the proper knowledge to come up with such "smart" jokes like you propose, esp at an early age.
And to top it off, that would only work in a regular setting where kids return to regularly (school, friends, family). In a playground where the kid is a new one, jokes will always restart.
If a child was "bullied" with Alexa once, it's a part of growing up: what doesn't kill us, makes us stronger.
And after that case a good parent can explain a child what Alexa is and role-play that scenario to make a child prepared to deal with it in the future.
Children grow up by getting into troubles and learning to deal with them. For that reason, for example, unsafe playgrounds are beneficial for children (google it).
And after that case a good parent can explain a child what Alexa is and role-play that scenario to make a child prepared to deal with it in the future.
Children grow up by getting into troubles and learning to deal with them. For that reason, for example, unsafe playgrounds are beneficial for children (google it).
> If a child was "bullied" with Alexa once, it's a part of growing up: what doesn't kill us, makes us stronger.
Actually, childhood trauma causes all sorts of problems later in life. It doesn't make kids stronger, it makes them less resilient, more depressed and anxious, and more inclined to lash out and perpetuate the cycle of abuse when they have power over e.g. younger kids
Actually, childhood trauma causes all sorts of problems later in life. It doesn't make kids stronger, it makes them less resilient, more depressed and anxious, and more inclined to lash out and perpetuate the cycle of abuse when they have power over e.g. younger kids
Anyone who's interested in this should look into adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) - https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/index.html
Small things like getting made fun of for your name, repeatedly, for years, can really mess with you, especially when people (including the adults in the room) are laughing at you when it happens and it's when your brain isn't even close to being done developing. It's not just violent abuse that can mess you up for life.
Small things like getting made fun of for your name, repeatedly, for years, can really mess with you, especially when people (including the adults in the room) are laughing at you when it happens and it's when your brain isn't even close to being done developing. It's not just violent abuse that can mess you up for life.
> what doesn't kill us, makes us stronger
Many things that dont kill us make us weaker. And often. This sentence here is motivational sentence meant to give you hope.
It is not accurate description of how things work. And specifically not in relation to bullying.
Many things that dont kill us make us weaker. And often. This sentence here is motivational sentence meant to give you hope.
It is not accurate description of how things work. And specifically not in relation to bullying.
> For that reason, for example, unsafe playgrounds are beneficial for children (google it).
Why won't you google it for the shared benefit of all of us? It's an interesting topic, after all.
Why won't you google it for the shared benefit of all of us? It's an interesting topic, after all.
There were many article in the media around 2012, I think this article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3499858/ started the discussion. It is short and not a study, but it has statements with links, like this:
> Eager and Little describe a risk deprived child as more prone to problems such as obesity, mental health concerns, lack of independence, and a decrease in learning, perception and judgment skills, created when risk is removed from play and restrictions are too high.
> Eager and Little describe a risk deprived child as more prone to problems such as obesity, mental health concerns, lack of independence, and a decrease in learning, perception and judgment skills, created when risk is removed from play and restrictions are too high.
The risk there is skinned knee or mild fall. Not being bullying target.
None of those structures is actually danherous in meaningfull sense.
None of those structures is actually danherous in meaningfull sense.
Good luck teaching a 3-5 year old that when they keep receiving jokes from kids/adults they've just met.
This is not a regular bullying situation where the bully really means harm: those giving jokes out are probably just finding it funny that the kid is named like their smart assistant (when it is the other way around, actually). But for kids on the receiving end, it gets old really fast.
Kids would learn to deal with it themselves, sure: by not introducing themselves to new people, or by not wanting to go to places where there are people you need to introduce yourself to.
This is not a regular bullying situation where the bully really means harm: those giving jokes out are probably just finding it funny that the kid is named like their smart assistant (when it is the other way around, actually). But for kids on the receiving end, it gets old really fast.
Kids would learn to deal with it themselves, sure: by not introducing themselves to new people, or by not wanting to go to places where there are people you need to introduce yourself to.
> Good luck teaching a 3-5 year old that when they keep receiving jokes from kids/adults they've just met.
3-5 yo kids are not yet smart enough to bully other kids with phrases like "alexa play disco". Many of them barely speak at 3 years. They just take other children toys to bully.
> those giving jokes out are probably just finding it funny that the kid is named like their smart assistant (when it is the other way around, actually). But for kids on the receiving end, it gets old really fast.
When they mean no harm, the receiving end will perceive no harm. In that case, yes, will just get bored. And while it is harmless, might be even a useful experience. For example, getting used to be in a centre of attention, which will greatly help with career in the future.
Like when a new kid joins the class, everyone says, hey, we have Alexa! And she gets a popularity point just for having a name.
> Kids would learn to deal with it themselves, sure: by not introducing themselves to new people, or by not wanting to go to places where there are people you need to introduce yourself to.
Then become a nun, and then live alone on a deserted island. That's possible, but unlikely.
3-5 yo kids are not yet smart enough to bully other kids with phrases like "alexa play disco". Many of them barely speak at 3 years. They just take other children toys to bully.
> those giving jokes out are probably just finding it funny that the kid is named like their smart assistant (when it is the other way around, actually). But for kids on the receiving end, it gets old really fast.
When they mean no harm, the receiving end will perceive no harm. In that case, yes, will just get bored. And while it is harmless, might be even a useful experience. For example, getting used to be in a centre of attention, which will greatly help with career in the future.
Like when a new kid joins the class, everyone says, hey, we have Alexa! And she gets a popularity point just for having a name.
> Kids would learn to deal with it themselves, sure: by not introducing themselves to new people, or by not wanting to go to places where there are people you need to introduce yourself to.
Then become a nun, and then live alone on a deserted island. That's possible, but unlikely.
> 3-5 yo kids are not yet smart enough to bully other kids with phrases like "alexa play disco". Many of them barely speak at 3 years. They just take other children toys to bully
Average 3 years old talks and they can say sentences like this. 5 years old talk well and can invent things.
> When they mean no harm, the receiving end will perceive no harm.
That is ridiculous. The receiving end are not mind readers. And especially with kids, they do unintentional harm or bullying without being aware it is something wrong. They often think it is righteous or fun.
Average 3 years old talks and they can say sentences like this. 5 years old talk well and can invent things.
> When they mean no harm, the receiving end will perceive no harm.
That is ridiculous. The receiving end are not mind readers. And especially with kids, they do unintentional harm or bullying without being aware it is something wrong. They often think it is righteous or fun.
[deleted]
The point about learning to deal with unwelcoming environments is also that, after more than 30 years, the fighting spirit and a certain degree of agressive stance is still in me.
The main skill is to avoid accidents: don't kick the head!
[deleted]
As someone who was, to some extend, bullied for my unusual name as a child, it's not really that easy. You enter a spiral where your lack of confidence in something that is fundamental you (your name) makes it worse, and that in turn makes it easier to pick on you for other reasons (or no reason at all). It's like the famous thread, when pulled unravel everything. And you're right, it could easily be something else (children are cruel) but a name is an easy place to start.
This is also why I look in wonder at some of the names parents give their children these days and why I gave my own a very common name.
This is also why I look in wonder at some of the names parents give their children these days and why I gave my own a very common name.
I think there is no single right answer for that.
I hate boring common things. If I had an unusual name I surely would have been bullied for it, but I was bullied anyway for my own innate behavior. And those are facets of me that I own and love, and did even as a child. As a very ypung kid I didn't consciously recognize the potential value of standing out, I just mean I knew the things that made me different were good things that I was not going to change.
I love being distinctive and interesting. I wish my name was special. I have very common first and last names so it's hard to prove I would have liked living with a weird one, but I have a somewhat uncommon middle name and I actively incorporate that into my identity. I include my middle initial everywhere I write my name, and I use f.fullmiddle.l as my gmail etc. Those little things mean it gets remarked on and every now and then I end up explaining it to someone, and the relative it comes from who I admire.
This is all just to say that different people react differently to the same inputs. There probably is no safe default for everyone. That which was bad for you would be good for someone else, and the reverse is also true, that which would have been good for you would have been bad for someone else.
For some people, the very safeness of a safe choice is itself the harm.
In the end, life is a dice roll. You don't get to choose your parents social standing or your genetics or country of birth, and as a parent you can't know ahead of time what decisions today will turn out to have been the best. Today I wish I wasn't circumcised, but I don't hold it against my parents because in the US in 1970 I think it was just plain universal, and my mom especially is not the weird-loving eccentric willing to buck the system that I am. She had to make decicions the only way she could. There is physically no other possible way to do it.
I hate boring common things. If I had an unusual name I surely would have been bullied for it, but I was bullied anyway for my own innate behavior. And those are facets of me that I own and love, and did even as a child. As a very ypung kid I didn't consciously recognize the potential value of standing out, I just mean I knew the things that made me different were good things that I was not going to change.
I love being distinctive and interesting. I wish my name was special. I have very common first and last names so it's hard to prove I would have liked living with a weird one, but I have a somewhat uncommon middle name and I actively incorporate that into my identity. I include my middle initial everywhere I write my name, and I use f.fullmiddle.l as my gmail etc. Those little things mean it gets remarked on and every now and then I end up explaining it to someone, and the relative it comes from who I admire.
This is all just to say that different people react differently to the same inputs. There probably is no safe default for everyone. That which was bad for you would be good for someone else, and the reverse is also true, that which would have been good for you would have been bad for someone else.
For some people, the very safeness of a safe choice is itself the harm.
In the end, life is a dice roll. You don't get to choose your parents social standing or your genetics or country of birth, and as a parent you can't know ahead of time what decisions today will turn out to have been the best. Today I wish I wasn't circumcised, but I don't hold it against my parents because in the US in 1970 I think it was just plain universal, and my mom especially is not the weird-loving eccentric willing to buck the system that I am. She had to make decicions the only way she could. There is physically no other possible way to do it.
What grief should I come visit on you, so that you can prove your point by accepting that the responsibility is all on you to deal with my action and not even 50% mine for commiting the action?
I remember similar instances as a kid and they often ended up in fights.
I wonder if there is a correlation between bullying and kids fighting.
I remember very few instances of bullying back in my times and every time it happened, either the target stood up for themselves or someone else did. I got my nose broken once defending someone and that was nothing rare.
If you made fun of someone you were similarly risking a right on your face. At the same time, if you reacted to verbal bullying, you showed a weakness, you showed you care.
I think these two factors worked together to limit bullying. Once we taught kids not to fight anymore, the balance got broken and bullying surged.
Most of the jokes I received were racially motivated, as one of the few black kids around; at the same time I definitely made jokes that implied people being gay without them wanting to admit that. I'm sure that caused a lot of hurt and that all of this would be enough to call the Twitter woke police nowadays.
And yet, I feel the environment in schools was much much healthier back then.
I remember very few instances of bullying back in my times and every time it happened, either the target stood up for themselves or someone else did. I got my nose broken once defending someone and that was nothing rare.
If you made fun of someone you were similarly risking a right on your face. At the same time, if you reacted to verbal bullying, you showed a weakness, you showed you care.
I think these two factors worked together to limit bullying. Once we taught kids not to fight anymore, the balance got broken and bullying surged.
Most of the jokes I received were racially motivated, as one of the few black kids around; at the same time I definitely made jokes that implied people being gay without them wanting to admit that. I'm sure that caused a lot of hurt and that all of this would be enough to call the Twitter woke police nowadays.
And yet, I feel the environment in schools was much much healthier back then.
Without knowing your age and location, I'm going to suggest this is probably survivor bias, and I'm very glad you were able to stand up to it and not be affected, but I saw quite a lot of bullying when I went to school (80s and 90s, Scandinavia), in one case enough to make someone change school.
[deleted]
> if you reacted to verbal bullying, you showed a weakness, you showed you care.
This is not how it works. If you simply ignore verbal bullying, and the next attempt, and the next, eventually you may become an outcast at best, of the amount of bullying will be increased at worst.
You show your weakness if your reaction had signs of weakness (like weeping). If you defend yourself, it is not weakness.
> Once we taught kids not to fight anymore
People should teach their kids not to start a fight. But their cannot teach other parents kids.
And they should teach their kids how to fight back.
This is not how it works. If you simply ignore verbal bullying, and the next attempt, and the next, eventually you may become an outcast at best, of the amount of bullying will be increased at worst.
You show your weakness if your reaction had signs of weakness (like weeping). If you defend yourself, it is not weakness.
> Once we taught kids not to fight anymore
People should teach their kids not to start a fight. But their cannot teach other parents kids.
And they should teach their kids how to fight back.
I personally found success in self deprecation. Bully says I drink pee, I escalate and say I eat poo. This is so far off script, the bully stammers and I walk away. Not great for the self esteem, it turns out, but together with running fast, I avoided the worst of it. My mom didn't appreciate that I was also badmouthing her to spike the dozens into the ground, tho
This is really unfortunate but there’s nothing really to do about it. I do hope parents think very carefully about their children’s names. It might seem edgy, cool, or have some deep unknown cultural roots, but the wrong name could sentence a child to many years of bullying.
Gotta be worse if your name is Karen. I have a friend named Karen who is pretty much the opposite of 'a Karen' so it makes me a bit sad that her name got destroyed.
Funny that article author needed to use fake names for parents, when article is about fake person with real name and actual children that change their names.
Generally I don't find this worth anyone's attention. A better investment would be to fight bullying in general and to improve school's response, than to throw fits over each namespace collision.
Generally I don't find this worth anyone's attention. A better investment would be to fight bullying in general and to improve school's response, than to throw fits over each namespace collision.
I wonder how many people named Alexa now go by Alex. It should be enough to stop the teasing and both are fine names but it must still be a little onerous to change one's name for this reason.
Imagine how good of a PR move it would be for Amazon to go ahead and rename Alexa to a non human name, despite all the inertia and recognition of the old name?
After Amazon acquires Rainforest some day in the future things will become really interesting.. /s
https://www.rainforestqa.com/
https://www.rainforestqa.com/
Is this why Apple picked Siri maybe? Something slightly more unusual
Apple purchased Siri from a startup of the same name. The startup founder chose the name because he liked it, having first heard of it because it was the name of a former coworker.
So, while perhaps less usual, it was chosen with the knowledge that it was very definitely a name used by people.
So, while perhaps less usual, it was chosen with the knowledge that it was very definitely a name used by people.
Change it to CIA
Considering some of the behaviour described just amounts to bullying, Amazon should be liable for the bullying this caused, since it WILL cause suicides and deaths. Bullying is not to be taken lightly (of course the schools in the article will deny it's taking place).
Policing this space is fruitless. You can't protect kids from everything, and in the grand scheme of things, names are a pretty minor transgression. I think I'm a better person for some mild ribbing about my name - I'm quick and witty and not afraid to defend myself. I've also learned to not take it personally - everybody thinks they're clever!