News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Statement on AI Risk by brookst on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @12:04PM (#36126482)
Odd that you lump a person's choice of their own pronouns into a legitimate complaint that all she seems to have is prejudice and ad hominems.
Re:Statement on AI Risk by olalonde on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @12:41PM (#36127034)
I have no issue with her choice of pronouns. I just find it odd that she states them when ~100% of the population would infer them correctly from her name Emily (and picture). My guess is she put them there for "ideology signaling".
Re:Statement on AI Risk by mrtranscendence on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @01:06PM (#36127429)
This is unnecessarily cynical. Why should people who are androgynous or trans be the only ones who state pronouns? By creating a norm around it we can improve their comfort at extremely minimal cost to ourselves.
Re:Statement on AI Risk by olalonde on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @01:16PM (#36127540)
I disagree, but HN is probably not the right place for this kind of debate. Also, it seems that you don't follow your own recommendation (on HN at least).
Re:Statement on AI Risk by hucgyuo on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @10:29PM (#36133798)
They brought it upon themselves by indulging in sex mimicry. It's not the responsibility of anyone else to mitigate this.

And it's not necessarily a good thing to normalise wrong-sex pronouns, see e.g. https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

Re:Statement on AI Risk by brookst on Wednesday May 31, 2023 @12:49PM (#36140488)
> My guess is she put them there for ideological signaling.

Yes, and you attacking her for that choice is also ideological signaling. This isn't a case where one choice is totally devoid of signal and the other is pejorative-of-the-day.

Many people believe that using normative pronouns makes those who use different pronouns more comfortable. They may be right, wrong, misguided, whatever. But it's a well-meaning and harmless act, and extremely strange to mention in the same breath as overt racism.