I used to work on a support team where a bot could solve simple cases: eg. if the user's software license had just expired, it would grant an immediate one-off 24 hour extension so the user could get their payments sorted.
The fun bit is that it would reply to the case using a female name, using the same kind of account as human support reps. The bot's customer satisfaction surveys were over the top effusive, including not a few people declaring that they were in love and asking us to promote "her" for being so fast, polite and effective. I don't think "she" was ever asked out on a date though!
This needn't be because of the female name though, does it? A bot is generally very fast and if it was programmed right it might just be a very good experience for the end-users.
Did the ratings change after the bot got a male name?
>Obviously, this would be inappropriate behavior if it was happening to an actual human assistant, and I would deal with it.
Unless one person has some level of authority over the other, I don't see why this should be considered inappropriate. Not taking no for an answer, or any kind of retribution for being declined, are harassment and shouldn't be tolerated -- but just asking? I think that's something any man or woman should be able to ask any man or woman.
For avoidance of doubt: Asking someone out when you know very little about them isn't smooth. It won't impress many people. But I don't see it as morally repugnant.
Someone at work in a customer-facing role is less free to handle these things like they want to, potentially at the risk of very real consequences to their job. If you work at a bar, or a mechanic's shop, or in the grocery checkout, a customer throwing a fit and spitefully getting your boss/management involved can lead to anything from straight up losing your job to just being a "difficult" worker and not getting the shifts you need.
If the people are not total strangers, it's different, but approaching someone that didn't volunteer to be in the situation, and can't freely respond, is absolutely inappropriate a lot of the time - I'd argue, at least.
(Obviously, a good employer should help you feel protected and safe in situations like this - but we all know that is not a choice many people get to make for themselves)
Thanks for responding. We might be mostly in agreement: I think the employee's concerns that you mention are genuine and important, but I see the root cause being some combination of the customer's and the boss's choices -- the customer being spiteful is the kind of retribution I consider harassment, and to the extent that they act that way because they're confident the boss will reflexively take their side, an abuse of power, though the boss also shares responsibility there. If both would instead behave like reasonable adults, declining an invitation would pose no threat to the employee's job security, and there would be no need to (formally or informally) regulate it.
I realise that that "if" isn't helpful to someone who has to deal with a reality where it doesn't (or even just might not) hold. But the point I want to make is that a culture in which we expect by default that the customer and boss will be reasonable, and shame them if they aren't, is just as possible as a culture where we expect by default that no one should ever ask anyone out at work, and shame them if they do. I often see people express things (like the sentence I quoted in my original comment) that nudge society further in the direction of the latter, but I think the former is better for everyone. Let's nudge it that way instead.
It is not seen as morally repugnant, it is seen as economically repugnant. If you were the server admin for a business and an old lady came in off the street asking if you would help her fix her computer, it is likely your boss would step in to put a stop to that too. The employer doesn't want to pay you to do things for other people.
If the old lady came to your house instead, nobody would give a rat's ass. Likewise, if 'Emily' were a real assistant and people were asking her out on dates using her personal email address, that'd be her problem. But when someone is paying you for your undivided attention...
If I understand you correctly, your objection to asking people out at work is that it wastes company time?
If so, this is a really interesting argument that I've never come across before. I do agree that it wastes company time, but I would think in such small quantities that it had very little impact -- on par with having a 5 minute chat with your office mate about their weekend.
I still have the impression that for many people who do object to this sort of thing, their objection stems from a feeling that being asked out at work is an uncomfortable or even frightening thing, something a person should not have to be subjected to.
> If I understand you correctly, your objection to asking people out at work is that it wastes company time?
No. Why would I have any feelings towards what other people do? That doesn't make any sense.
The quote is written from an economic perspective. If 'Emily' were real and a random person the author had never met, there would be no concern or attempt to stand in. Allison is concerned because they would have 'Emily' on the clock. It impacts Allison directly.
The cost in the case in the bot, despite being the exact same act, is so small it is immeasurable. As such, we get a 'funny anecdote' instead.
I'm trying to understand why you replied "No" to my "If I understand you correctly, your objection to asking people out at work is that it wastes company time?"
AFAICT, everything else you have said, including your latest reply, is inconsistent with that.
Because your argument, if you are aware that you made it, is that it is “economically repugnant”. That is what you said, and that was your previous argument. You are now arguing with your own argument, saying “No. Why would I have any feelings towards what other people do? That doesn't make any sense.”
That is what it has to do with the discussion, that you are inconsistent and refuse to elaborate on your previous position by claiming it is other people’s position and that you “don’t care”.
The original comment questioned why the person in the article would be concerned about an employee receiving an email containing a request for a date. The answer is that they would have concerns because the worker is on the clock and it is costing them money to have their employee spend time dealing with the request (even if ultimately ignored).
Somehow that turned into my objection, which was illogical. It didn't make sense then and it makes even less sense that it keeps coming up. It has no relevance to the thread... or life in general.
What’s illogical is your inefficient response to the matter. You were asked a simple question, but because said question assumed it was your objection you proceeded to waste time asserting that you do not care, as if that somehow is an important distinction. It was your argument, your opinion on why it is repugnant, and it is how you would feel as the boss in that situation.
You only have to look at LinkedIn to see the levels people go to when commenting on women's posts. Even those where these women post nothing but business - and if their posts have a photo, there's an even better chance these comments will be there.
On the other hand, you can see some posts are bait. And the guys replying take it and run. You see them because if any of your connections react to these posts, you might see them in your feed.
It's cringey. Coupled with the self-aggrandising posts, the self-help "wisdom" and other stuff, they make LinkedIn look like a Mos Eisley Cantina.
This isn't to excuse inappropriate behavior, but I do think that we should clearly label bots whenever possible to avoid embarrassments similar to this where one party knows it's a bot and the other doesn't.
Agreed. If it were a 'male' named bot, would that elicit the same responses? Why have a gendered name for a bot anyway, when there's tons of names without any sort of gender. If you've picked a 'female' name for a bot because you think it would get better responses, etc - that's something you would probably want to evaluate, but if people are thinking it's a human, then that's a you problem.
This is bizarre. I get very annoyed with creepy behaviour in the workplace especially. But if this post is true, then I would absolutely be forwarding the email thread to the client and simply say: "Could you ask your employee to please stop filling the automated assistant inbox".
I have used female names for random one-off online accounts and the difference in the way I was treated was pretty fascinating and frankly a little saddening.
Just... differently. A lot more random messages from strangers. A lot more smiley faces and what I could only describe as mild flirting or "flirt prodding". Depending on the platform there can also be a lot more abuse.
There's an obvious solution that doesn't involve moralizing about gender disputes. Set up another bot to schedule hoax dates, "Here's my personal email address" Continue to elaborate on the scheme with AI selfies, excuses for the no-show and whatever else you can come up with. You'll have more ideas as the project progresses.
The real comedy gold will be when the person involved asks about your assistant in real life.
>It gives a standard salutation and signs off with “Thank you, <bot name>.”
I thought this was a mistake implying the bot was thanking itself as a way of signing off, but finally I realized it's probably supposed be a format like the end of a letter similar to "best wishes, topherclay".
This seems like a great opportunity for LLMs. With ChatGPT's highly advanced flirty chat simulation, your business could keep those flirting-with-the-scheduling-bot email threads going for weeks!
I don’t think there’s anything morally wrong with it, but I’d still say men shouldn’t do it because it’s annoying.
We’ve been mixing up “morally wrong” with “come on, don’t be a dick” constantly when addressing feminist issues. The first relates to feminist issues, the latter is general advice for human beings. This is the latter: Don’t hit on people without any personal context. It’s weird, annoying, and a bit sad. Do we have to say these things out loud?
Imagine being an actual woman and having to deal with this bullshit all the fucking time. I have no idea how the hell they do it. Must be low-level torture.
> I've asked out wait staff at restaurants, bar tenders, even co-workers with some success based on little more than them being nice or attractive
These people generally aren’t being nice to you because they reciprocate, they’re being nice because it’s their job. Asking them out while they’re working is awkward for everyone involved. Worse, it can make them feel pressured to let you down gently or give you the false impression that they’re interested if only they weren’t currently in a relationship.
> all women have to do is ignore or deny the advance, how is that "dealing with bullshit"?
Most men are decent, but plenty of men are aggressive, scary, or make women very uncomfortable.
If you ask someone out respectfully, of course that's fine. If you're not taking no for an answer, being hostile, or making someone feel very uncomfortable/unsafe, then you're not doing the right thing.
Actually, even the polite men are being creepy. Hitting on someone you barely know, in a business environment, is just creepy cringe.
Yeah, sure, you're being a "gentleman" by backing down when she inevitably rejects such an inappropriate advance, but after the hundredth insta-suitor, it gets old and even stressful and anxiety inducing.
I totally understand, but I don't really know the answer. Men who are more aggressive (in an appropriate or inappropriate manner) tend to be more successful.
So, as a man, your options are to:
1. Ask fewer women out so that you are more respectful. This likely means you'll have less success dating.
2. Ask more women out, even in environments that might be uncomfortable, e.g. a server, co-worker, etc. They're going to have more success dating.
Again, I totally understand this sucks for women, but men don't have great options here either.
The answer is to learn to read the signals people give off when they're interested. The "more aggressive" men just aren't reading the signals. So they ask and get shot down. And they get a lower quality of relationship in the rare cases of success since they're merely playing the odds.
Get to know someone before asking them out. Find out what they're like. Know what you're like, and what kinds of people you're compatible with. Your 20s and in some cases even 30s are your opportunity to learn.
It depends on context really. Which as someone on the spectrum (childhood diagnosis, not adult) has always presented its challenges and its why I personally have erred on the side of caution. I would not personally approach a woman for instance in an instance in which she is engaged in her employment activities and im interacting as a customer/vendor/partner whatever. However it's not unfeasible that it is my feelings on the matter that are abnormal so perhaps i've been going about it all wrong.
I'd simply never want to make somebody feel uncomfortable because I choose a time that is not appropriate for such interactions. And for me, that pretty much means that unless we are sharing personal time together outside of such a relationship, then I don't engage in such activities.
Thanks for responding. I can certainly relate to feeling pressure not to upset other people, and even think that it's a healthy impulse to have, up to a point. (Certainly it's unhealthy to never feel it.) I don't think your feelings are abnormal -- to me they seem very much in agreement with current norms, in the US at least. But I would like you to think about whether the current socially decided notion of "what's appropriate" is as balanced and as good for everyone as it could be.
Social norms like this can and do change over time, and it's my opinion that this (specifically, that asking people out in a work environment is always or nearly always inappropriate) is one that should -- because I think there's an alternative set of norms that leaves essentially everyone better off. Specifically I think that if it was understood by everyone that a person asking another person out (in any context, including at work) is responsible for dealing with rejection like an adult and not continuing to pester the person, then (absent any power difference that might imply a quid pro quo situation), there would be no reason to forbid it. Most people would still hesitate to do it (asking someone out can result in rejection, rejection is embarrassing), but the kind of scenario described by Martinussen in https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=akoboldfrying#389248..., where an employee fears for their job if they don't pander to an entitled customer, won't occur.
> But I would like you to think about whether the current socially decided notion of "what's appropriate" is as balanced and as good for everyone as it could be.
I never do well with these really I think because I often have both extreme, yet very conflicting positions on almost everything. But sure.
> I think that if it was understood by everyone that a person asking another person out (in any context, including at work) is responsible for dealing with rejection like an adult and not continuing to pester the person, then (absent any power difference that might imply a quid pro quo situation), there would be no reason to forbid it.
I would say in an ideal world, realistically, yes. Despite the suggestion my post my have originally given. It was probably too flippant, for which I apologise honestly.
The next time I'm in an internet argument that seems to be escalating, I hope I will remember these last couple of comments of yours, and be as willing to reconsider my own position as you have been.
As a former male server I experienced women hitting on me in ways that I thought only men did and it didn't feel great at all. I'm sure there will be guys out there saying that's a good problem to have, but it really isn't. Especially if you have a wife already.
To describe it succinctly I and many others are a captive audience in these agreements to labor/income. I'm not necessarily attracted to you just because you are in my vicinity.
Well you can argue against procreation of human race if you want but long-term this only means no procreation of your culture and not of the human race as a whole. Other cultures, more eager to spread will take it's place eventually.
I didn’t argue against it in general, just for the case of people who pester service staff in pursuit of sexual gratification. I don’t think that’s a cultural issue, so much as one of individual boorishness.
Seeing "boorishness" and "pursuit of sexual gratification" as inherently bad things is indeed a cultural phenomenon. There are cultures that explicitly reward one or both of these.
The problem is the combination of the two, although the former is discouraged most everywhere. Being a pest is not a matter of culture, but an individual choice.
I'll +1 this, in spite of the overwhelming negative reception. Sometimes the vibe is right. Usually, people just want to get on with their lives and not be propositioned; but sometimes the chemistry is there -- and what is a person to do?
> I think you are being sarcastic, at least I hope so, otherwise, unless you are 100% abstinent, how do you expect couples to form and human to procreate? If you really are this uninformed, the way it works 99% of the time, men ask out women they are attracted to, sometimes a woman just being nice to a man is enough for him to see an "opening" and ask her out.
>I've asked out wait staff at restaurants, bar tenders, even co-workers with some success based on little more than them being nice or attractive, this is how our species reproduces, if its "bullshit" for anyone its men getting the short end of the stick, all women have to do is ignore or deny the advance, how is that "dealing with bullshit"?
You make a good point. You have personally asked out women based off them being nice or attractive, therefore it cannot be a source of irritation. It cannot have been unpleasant if kylebenzel does it
Imagine if women behaved this way toward men. Before making the obvious snarky remarks, step back and think about how unpleasant that would be, as well as distracting from doing actual work, degrading (they aren't taking you seriously as a professional, just as a f-k), etc.
I'm sorry, what world do you live in? As a server, women were extremely crass and inappropriate with me all of the time and it wasn't nice at all for me. I am also not the type to be that kind of guy so it was very jarring for me to experience.
San Francisco, Seattle, New York, Miami, Austin. Pick one I live there. Being in these environments really makes you wonder what sort of intellectual and ultimately evolutionary advancements have we made by constantly just volleying a ball over a net for so long with decisions that are made without our reach, oversight and generally care.
Also, please do better with your comments in the future. You didn't even follow your smarmy link to see if something appropriate was shown in the results =[
It’s inappropriate if it’s inappropriate. Not that hitting on a woman is inappropriate in itself.
Think of it the other way around: You send an email trying to quickly schedule an appointment with someone, and they reply with a time, and flirt with you. It’s weird because there’s no context for that.
There's a TV show starring Stephen Merchant from a few years ago called "Hello Ladies", in which he plays a character who is constantly hitting on (and being rejected by) models and actresses. He has a frequent complaint when he gets shut down for behaving inappropriately: "What are the rules?!?"
It's frustrating for people who are less socially adept to learn that, in some cases, there are no hard and fast rules.
Competition strategy. The more people you can convince that they shouldn't hit on women means fewer people hitting on women, which improves the chances for those who hit on women.
Same reason 'slut shaming' is a thing, which is the same thing, just from the other point of view. The more people you can convince to not accept the advances of others means more opportunity for those who do.
The fun bit is that it would reply to the case using a female name, using the same kind of account as human support reps. The bot's customer satisfaction surveys were over the top effusive, including not a few people declaring that they were in love and asking us to promote "her" for being so fast, polite and effective. I don't think "she" was ever asked out on a date though!