News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A critique of Gmail's “smart replies” by vonnik on Monday November 12, 2018 @06:38PM (#18437004)
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

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.

Re:A critique of Gmail's “smart replies” by icebraining on Monday November 12, 2018 @07:51PM (#18437430)
I'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.
Re:A critique of Gmail's “smart replies” by SamBam on Monday November 12, 2018 @08:00PM (#18437472)
People 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.

Re:A critique of Gmail's “smart replies” by A2017U1 on Monday November 12, 2018 @09:03PM (#18437826)
I'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.

Re:A critique of Gmail's “smart replies” by fipple on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @12:14AM (#18438776)
The suggestions probably come from people’s email, so as the system gets better, you’ll be judging someone just because Gmail later plagiarized them.