[SUBMITTED/ISSUES CONTEST] Hey Alexis, Are You Sexist?

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Again, thank you all for you feedback thus far. I have used it to create draft #3, which is up right now. In regards to the description, however, Fauxia brought up a potential issue with it, and more specifically,

Not sure about the description. Maybe it's just me but feels like it's maybe making too much light of rape.

Does anybody else also have this concern, or have better ideas in terms of humor in the description? If so, please share it/them, in addition to any other feedback you have.

[Sacara]

Not sure about the description. Maybe it's just me but feels like it's maybe making too much light of rape. Certainly, any issue that references rape needs an adult tag.

This.

Why not have the description state that a new study from @@ANIMAL@@ University shows AI bots and voice assistants reinforce gender bias. Make it a short statement; the description doesn't need to be lengthy, and it lays out the issue at hand very succinctly.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Draft #3.5 is up now, everyone! Be sure to give any additional feedback you have soon, as I want to submit this to the issues contest before the deadline (at the end of this month).

Edit: By the way, I decided to keep the adult tag because of the last option and the corresponding effect line's reference to domestic abuse.

[USS Monitor]

Draft #3.5 is up now, everyone! Be sure to give any additional feedback you have soon, as I want to submit this to the issues contest before the deadline (at the end of this month).

Edit: By the way, I decided to keep the adult tag because of the last option and the corresponding effect line's reference to domestic abuse.

That effect line is a problem because the effect lines are visible to the general public on nation pages. Even if class users could not receive the issue, it would still be out there for people to see and it's just in poor taste.

[Dabarastan]

I see that Sacara recommended a description saying something like this, but to me, this doesn't make much sense:

A study from the @@NAME@@ Institute of Technology found that voice assistants reinforce gender bias, due to their typically feminine voices and names, in addition to their tolerance of verbal abuse.

What kind of study could demonstrate a causal relationship like this? "Voice assistants reinforce gender bias" is a bold claim. Them having "typically feminine voices" to me doesn't demonstrate or illustrate a causal relationship. To me, this premise is too assumptive.

[Trotterdam]

The only way a study could determine that is if it measured the average sexism of both people who use voice assistants and people who don't use voice assistants, and compared them. Measuring sexism is already hard enough (especially if you're looking for mild biases rather than blatant chauvinism), and I suspect that willingness to use voice assistants already depends on a whole bunch of hard-to-predict factors (such as willingness to use new technologies, which correlates with progressive thought, and having disabilities that make you actually need voice assistants due to having trouble using computers otherwise, which might either encourage you to empathize with other disadvantaged people or conversely cause you to get annoyed that they get more attention), which means that there's a risk of non-causal correlation, too.

[Sacara]

What kind of study could demonstrate a causal relationship like this? "Voice assistants reinforce gender bias" is a bold claim. Them having "typically feminine voices" to me doesn't demonstrate or illustrate a causal relationship. To me, this premise is too assumptive.

This was taken straight from the article in the OP, linked above his draft. It's from the Brookings Institute, titled "How AI bots and voice assistants reinforce gender bias."

[Dabarastan]

What kind of study could demonstrate a causal relationship like this? "Voice assistants reinforce gender bias" is a bold claim. Them having "typically feminine voices" to me doesn't demonstrate or illustrate a causal relationship. To me, this premise is too assumptive.

This was taken straight from the article in the OP, linked above his draft. It's from the Brookings Institute, titled "How AI bots and voice assistants reinforce gender bias."

Yep, admittedly I missed that in the OP. I stand corrected, although I still think this draft's premise glosses over the link and assumes the reader by default accepts the hypothesis and alleged findings from the @@NAME@@ Institute of Technology.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Draft #4 is up now, everybody! Does anybody see any other problems, or have suggestions for improvement?

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Bump.

[Fauxia]

Reminder to use "straight quotes" instead of “smart quotes”

TITLE:
Hey Ziri, Are You Sexist?

Alexa might be a better choice to riff off of, since that's a real (female) name.

VALIDITY:
Has the Internet, computers, and high scientific advancement

I'll get to this in a minute.

A study from the @@NAME@@ Institute of Technology claims that the usage of voice assistants reinforces gender bias, due to their typically feminine voices and names, in addition to their tolerance of verbal abuse. Feminists and their opponents are arguing, at times violently, over the study’s validity and potential implications, and have come to you in hopes of putting this debate to rest.

At times violently? What? That's coming from nowhere, and doesn't serve a purpose here unless you figure some humor into it. The last sentence or two is extraneous. The issue is on the table, we know people want to settle it.

Besides, software is ultimately inanimate, and should be regarded as such.”

This definitely does not apply to AI citizenship nations, but I also don't think it is a necessary comment anyway. Just say the part about agender. This was where I was going to talk about AI. I think it might be appropriate for AI citizenship nations where there should be an option that argues the assistants should identify with their own gender or lack thereof.

@@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ expect their partners to instantly adjust ACs from miles away.

Eh. Maybe this works because it's rather insidious.

“god-given right

Not god-given in an atheist country. Just get rid of that adjective.

to enjoy my software? Further, according to our market research, openness to trying voice assistants is correlated with openness about one’s own biases, likely inflating the study’s measure of users’ prejudice. Simply ignore the feminists’ pseudoscientific nonsense, @@LEADER@@, and let the market work its magic! Besides, I created a male version, too, though nobody seems to use it...”
OUTCOME:
knowledgeable women and sexism make an unlikely pair.

Don't care for the effect line, but this option is well executed. I like his dismissal of pseudoscientific nonsense.

You hear a grumbling voice. “Why bother with these newfangled voice assistants?” asks your grandfather, shaking his fist from his wheelchair. “Back in my day, we had women as our domestic slav… I mean assistants! Send us back to the good old days by banning these voice assistants, and bring civility back to @@NATION@@!”
OUTCOME:
librarians are quitting in droves to become housewives.

Some nations do have geronticide, so this might be better if it was just a generally sexist guy with a submissive partner.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Draft #4.5 is up now! I hope I did not miss any of Fauxia's suggestions, but if I did, or if anybody has additional suggestions to make, please let me know soon. Again, I want to submit this by the contest deadline, which is the end of this month.

Reminder to use "straight quotes" instead of “smart quotes”

Sorry, but what do you mean by this?

Alexa might be a better choice to riff off of, since that's a real (female) name.

Addressed. It is now Alexis.

At times violently? What? That's coming from nowhere, and doesn't serve a purpose here unless you figure some humor into it. The last sentence or two is extraneous. The issue is on the table, we know people want to settle it.

Addressed. I tried to reference the "smash the patriarchy" meme here.

This definitely does not apply to AI citizenship nations, but I also don't think it is a necessary comment anyway. Just say the part about agender. This was where I was going to talk about AI. I think it might be appropriate for AI citizenship nations where there should be an option that argues the assistants should identify with their own gender or lack thereof.

Addressed. I gave option 1 two flavors, one for nations with and one for nations without AI personhood.

Eh. Maybe this works because it's rather insidious.

I changed the first option's effect line to something more humorous, referencing a certain commercial.

Not god-given in an atheist country. Just get rid of that adjective.

Addressed. But should I also get rid of "state-given" in the socialist version, then?

Don't care for the effect line,

Addressed. The second option's effect line was changed, and now references voice assistants' notorious issues with accented speech.

Some nations do have geronticide, so this might be better if it was just a generally sexist guy with a submissive partner.

Addressed. It is now a sexist, Luddite secretary. Should the "L" be capitalized, though?

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Bump.

[Fauxia]

You're correct to capitalize Luddite, it's a proper noun as far as I can tell.

There's no reason that the socialist and capitalist texts have to exactly parallel each other, so you can keep "state-given" if you like it.

As for the quotes, NS code only reads the type of quotes that are straight, like this: ""
Right now, you have: “” (look closely if you can't tell the difference). This drives the editors nuts, so fixing it as an absolute must.

[Jutsa]

Oh yeah, absolutely, you have to change the “smart quotes” to "dumb quotes". Keeping them fancy breaks everything in the submission process or something.
Unfortunately, I'm not certain about smart ’ vs dumb '. I think that also applies. Here, I'll just do that right quick for you, since this is an otherwise pretty good draft and I'd hate for that to downgrade your rank in the contest.

TITLE:
Hey Alexis, Are You Sexist?

VALIDITY:
Has the Internet, computers, and high scientific advancement

DESCRIPTION:
A study from the @@NAME@@ Institute of Technology claims that the usage of voice assistants, due to a combination of their servility and the fact they are typically feminine, reinforce gender bias. Arguments are being raised, and things smashed, over the study's validity and potential implications.

OPTION 1 – AI PERSONHOOD
"Are you really going to let this systemic misogyny continue, @@LEADER@@?", snaps @@RANDOMFEMALENAME_1@@, author of the study in question and proud feminist. "This study is just one of many to prove that voice assistants being female by convention renders even egalitarian users somewhat sexist. Therefore, the solution here is to let our digital citizens' diversity flourish by mandating that they are the gender, or lack thereof, they identify as."
OUTCOME:
women have never ordered more bath oil

OPTION 1 – NO AI PERSONHOOD
"Are you really going to let this systemic misogyny continue, @@LEADER@@?", snaps @@RANDOMFEMALENAME_1@@, author of the study in question and proud feminist. "This study is just one of many to prove that voice assistants being female by convention renders even egalitarian users somewhat sexist. Therefore, the solution here is to increase their diversity by mandating that half of them are male by default."
OUTCOME:
women have never ordered more bath oil

OPTION 2 -- CAPITALISM
"I don't see what the problem is here," interjects Mosfet Gatez, president of a leading @@DEMONYM@@ tech company. "I was simply fulfilling the nation's male… I mean myriad of citizens' desires! They want voice assistants to be submissive and feminine, and who am I to deny them their right to enjoy my software? Further, according to our market research, openness to trying voice assistants is correlated with openness about one's own biases, likely inflating the study's measure of users' prejudice. Simply ignore the feminists' pseudoscientific nonsense, @@LEADER@@, and let the market work its magic! Besides, I created a male version, too, though nobody seems to use it..."
OUTCOME:
@@NAME@@'s sexiest women have suddenly gained a reputation for problems with accents

OPTION 2 -- NO CAPITALISM
"I don't see what the problem is here," interjects Mosfet Gatez, Minister of the People's Technology. "We were simply fulfilling the nation's male… I mean myriad of citizens' desires! They want voice assistants to be submissive and feminine, and who are we to deny them their state-given right to enjoy our software? Further, according to our psychological research, openness to trying voice assistants is correlated with openness about one's own biases, likely inflating the study's measure of users' prejudice. Simply ignore the feminists' pseudoscientific nonsense, @@LEADER@@, and keep the people happy! Besides, we created a male version, too, though nobody seems to use it…"
OUTCOME:
@@NAME@@'s sexiest women have suddenly gained a reputation for problems with accents

OPTION 3
You hear a grumbling voice. "Why bother with these newfangled voice assistants?" asks your Luddite secretary, while attempting to hide a whip. "After all, we could just turn real women into our domestic…uhh... helpers! Send us back to the good old days by banning these soulless robots, and bring civility back to @@NAME@@!"

^ Feel free to quote me and take this. It should have every apostrophe and quotation mark replaced.
(Don't just copy/paste from view mode though; make sure you click the quote button so you also copy the formatings with [ i ] [ /i ] and all that.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Still Draft #4.5, everybody! The only changes I made since last time was to take Jutsa's edits above replacing the smart apostrophes and quotes with straight ones. (i.e. “ to "). From what I heard, this will streamline the submitting/editing process. If there are any quotes/apostrophes which are still not straight, any other potential formatting issues, or just any other feedback you would like to give, please give it soon, as this draft is on last call.

You're correct to capitalize Luddite, it's a proper noun as far as I can tell.

I had a hunch that it was, but I was not sure. Thank you for confirming.

There's no reason that the socialist and capitalist texts have to exactly parallel each other, so you can keep "state-given" if you like it.

In that case, I kept it.

As for the quotes, NS code only reads the type of quotes that are straight, like this: ""
Right now, you have: “” (look closely if you can't tell the difference). This drives the editors nuts, so fixing it as an absolute must.

Addressed. I took Jutsa's edits above, which also changed the apostrophes to straight ones.

Oh yeah, absolutely, you have to change the “smart quotes” to "dumb quotes". Keeping them fancy breaks everything in the submission process or something.
Unfortunately, I'm not certain about smart ’ vs dumb '. I think that also applies. Here, I'll just do that right quick for you, since this is an otherwise pretty good draft and I'd hate for that to downgrade your rank in the contest.
(edited draft here)
^ Feel free to quote me and take this. It should have every apostrophe and quotation mark replaced.
(Don't just copy/paste from view mode though; make sure you click the quote button so you also copy the formatings with [ i ] [ /i ] and all that.

Again, thank you, Jutsa!

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

Bump/Last Call Reminder.

[Clever Homo Sapiens]

The issue has been submitted, everybody! I hope that even if this issue is not a contest winner, it will become part of the game. To close, for those of you that left feedback, I leave you with this:

P.S. Could any of the Issues Editors tell me if the submission went through? This is my first time actually submitting an issue, and my Internet has been acting up lately.