this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
373 points (93.1% liked)

Fuck AI

5920 readers
1910 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

TranscriptMastodon posts by @trenchworms@eldritch.cafe:

super revealing of the misogyny inherent to the space that "AI assistants" stopped being given feminine-coded names the moment tech chuds thought they were developing higher levels of autonomy

"i TELL Alexa what to do. i COLLABROATE with Chudbot. i will not reflect on this hierarchy at all."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Bixby is definitely more masculine than feminine. Samsung actually renamed it to Sam (and gave it a feminine avatar) when they made it smarter. Google Assistant was only called Majel internally and very briefly, as a reference to the voice of the Star Trek computer. Externally, it was always Google Assistant until it was replaced with Gemini. Alexa is still Alexa. Siri is still Siri. Cortana was replaced by Copilot. By my count, that's one masc -> fem, one fem -> neutral, one neutral -> neutral, and two unchanged.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I’m torn on this because there definitely is a worrying increase in bigotry and tech bro culture, but at the same time OP’s “it’s so blatant once you notice it” could just as easily be “it’s so blatant once you’ve adopted confirmation bias enough to handwave away the exceptions”.

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

The evidence is obviously if you decide on the conclusion before looking for it

[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

... This is not a made-up thought experiment though? We do have empirical data? Out of the five (5) companies mentioned in this thread, one (1) does not fit the pattern outlined in the OP. Seems pretty clear that something is going on. Unless you can point to some kind of sampling bias (by finding additional counterexamples), I don't see how you can just chalk it up to confirmation bias.

Sure, it could all be coincidence, in the same way that maybe the dog really did eat my homework. Not a very convincing explanation.

Interestingly I never see this kilometric leeway given to tech companies when discussing, say, their technically unproven surveillance practices, which pretty much everyone readily accept as fact.
That so many people are fighting this particular point is inherently curious. For "some reason" accusations of misogyny require a much higher burden of proof than many other kinds of accusations, which is really more a reflection on the people debating this than on the tech companies themselves (which we already know are run by complete and utter human shitstains anyway).

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

If I toss a coin 5 times and get 1H 4T, there's not a journal on the planet that would accept that as proof that it was a loaded coin, not to mention that the 5 on the list were specifically selected to prove a point (or were Clippy, Microsoft Bob, and Google Now girls as well?); and even if we did accept it as a rule (even though it isn't) it still doesn't follow that there was misogynist intent driving it; that's something you decided for yourselves.

which is really more a reflection on the people debating this

I'd throw that right back at you. People arguing in its support seem a lot more likely to look for secret misogynist motives in the person they're talking to in order to support their argument by ad hominem. It suggests an "our team versus their team" attitude where being on the correct team is more important than being fair or accurate.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Point of order: Sam is gender neutral (we had a GirlSam and BoySam in our drama group in college, and GirlSam was there first (also won in the rock paper scissors to see who kept the name) so BoySam was BoySam and GirlSam was Sam unless we needed to be really specific in conversations)

[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago

Samsung's Sam is not gender-neutral, however.

tral, however.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Even if we accept your premise, and I am not sure I do, you are still ignoring that they all had female avatars to begin with. So none of them started masc or neutral even if you think the name was.

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

You and OP need to start doing at least a TINY bit of research before you make these claims because they're verifiably wrong lol

It's wild that you're the most upvoted person in this thread when what you're saying just isn't true

[–] egrets@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Bixby's only visual representation was a lowercase "b" in negative space on blue leaf/teardrop shape. S Voice was a microphone. It's never had a humanoid avatar.

Siri's was a handwritten "Siri" with a green circle for the dot on the "I"; after Apple bought it, it was a microphone and then an abstract blue/purple design. It's never had a humanoid avatar.

Google Now wasn't stand-alone and didn't have any particular design - the button was a microphone in the Google palette. Google Assistant got an abstract set of circles in the Google palette. It's never had a humanoid avatar.

So I guess we're just talking about Cortana, unless I've missed any notable ones?

(Edit: Alexa didn't have an avatar; the logo was a lowercase "alexa" in the Amazon style with the smirking Amazon arrow. Evi had a plain circle with a dot and an arc, like a cyclopean emoji. Ivona was a headless service.)

[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Which of them had avatars at all except Cortana (before) and Sam (after)?