Men are hitting on my scheduling bot because it has a woman's name

[resolutebat]

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!

[jauco]

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?

[kylebenzle]

Women do tend to get treated better and given more opportunities, interesting observation.

[akoboldfrying]

>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.

[Martinussen]

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)

[randomdata]

> But I don't see it as morally repugnant.

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...

[freitasm]

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.

[rl3]

>... they make LinkedIn look like a Mos Eisley Cantina.

No amount of credits could convince Figrin D'an and the Modal Nodes to play LinkedIn. That band has standards.

[63]

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.

[spiderxxxx]

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.

[tourmalinetaco]

Nah, time spent flirting up a bot is time spent away from actual humans.

[bilekas]

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".

[noman-land]

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.

[akoboldfrying]

Were you treated better, or worse?

[palmfacehn]

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.

[topherclay]

>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".

[infotainment]

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!

[ghusto]

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?

[ryanklee]

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.

[kylebenzle]

.

[wolverine876]

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.

[resolutebat]

There are, sadly, multiple other regions that fit the bill (Middle East, Latin America, etc), and plenty of creeps in all countries.

[huytersd]

Why is hitting on a woman inappropriate behavior?

[ghusto]

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.

[randomdata]

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.

[kennethrc]

I'm sorry, but this doesn't ping anyone else's Bullshit Detector?!

[6R1M0R4CL3]

if some men did, it is not acceptable to write "men are hitting" because not all men are doing that. at minimum this is dishonest if not misandry.

[resolutebat]

The statement is true as long as all the people doing the hitting are men.

"Woman stoned to death by men" does not imply all men stone women to death.