Hacker News Reader

> If you saw someone write something like "If you had a human assistant and asked them 'What’s the time in London?' and they honestly thought the best way to answer that question was to give you the time for the nearest London, which happened to be in Ontario or Kentucky, you’d fire that assistant." you'd be quick to call them out as an "obvious" bad employer.

No, really, this is just a tired nitpick. I hear a lot of complaints about Hacker News on other websites, about how the commenters are too nitpicky and "Actually, …", but I usually don't mind or actually appreciate many of those. This particular one really annoys me. Everyone knows that people make mistakes all the time, and clearly you shouldn't fire them for simple ones. But that's not the point that was being made! You just sitting here claiming people are obviously horrible because you saw the word "fire" is just not productive at all.

I think the point translates just fine.

What I read was, "Siri doesn't give me exactly what I want by perfectly understanding my own personal bias that London means, London, England, so I am going to post a blog complaining about it, while simultaneously cracking a joke that I would terminate someone's employment if they made a basic mistake." Which I took to be pretty unproductive conversation.

Still, point made. OP would be terrible to work for and Siri could potentially use some improvements in accuracy.

> Siri doesn't give me exactly what I want by perfectly understanding my own personal bias that London means, London, England, so I am going to post a blog complaining about it, while simultaneously cracking a joke that I would terminate someone's employment if they made a basic mistake.

At some point, an assumption that an extremely large majority of people would reasonably make (I am hesitant to claim the number of "nines", but would guess it to be at least three) stops becoming a "personal bias" and a and more of "unless you were raised by wolves or some sort of homeschool for math savants you really ought to know what I mean". If I'm talking about Springfield and you take it to mean I am discussing the Simpsons and not one of the dozen Springfields that exist in the United States, sure, that is an honest, "basic mistake" (although I would prefer if you clarified the moment you guessed that something might be wrong with your interpretation). Thinking that I really meant the tiny town of London, Ohio that I have never mentioned and more than likely probably don't even know exists when I say "London" instead of the massive metropolis that is the capital of a major world country is just being stupid: something is very off with your sense of context. (To finish the argument: if I said "London" and you assumed "London, England" but I actually did mean "London, Ohio", I would be extremely forgiving, to the point where I would lay the fault on myself for not clarifying when I gave such a misleading view.)

> OP would be terrible to work

Because they say they're not interested in employing people who cannot understand more context than a reasonable human being needs to quite literally live and interact with others?

> Siri could potentially use some improvements in accuracy

Siri could absolutely use some improvements in accuracy.

I'm with the author here. There's a certain amount of base knowledge that not having is just indicative of general cluelessness.

It's like if you asked someone to get you a cup of coffee and they came back with a measuring cup of coffee beans, it's not that you can't educate them that you actually wanted them to grind the beans and filter some water through it. It's that they're going to screw up lots of other stuff too.

You probably wouldn't fire them after the first time, but do you really think someone who makes that mistake won't just be more trouble than help to work with?

>You probably wouldn't fire them after the first time, but do you really think someone who makes that mistake won't just be more trouble than help to work with?

I've worked with some clueless people. All of which were capable of learning with some instruction and guidance.

Had a cameraman once forget to press "record" at the beginning of an event - nearly costing me a client. I was pissed at the ignorance of the mistake, but I ate a lot of the frustration, mentioned that I need him to occasionally ensure the camera is on, and recording during events and...it never happened again.

I wouldn't fire someone for bringing me a cup of coffee beans instead of a brewed cup of coffee. I would let them go if they kept doing it after being provided instruction.

As an aside, I never ask anyone to make me coffee unless they are a trained barista, and even they make drinks that aren't what I want on occasion. Though I see your point, there is way too much preference in how to make an ideal "cup of coffee" for this to really be comparable, in my opinion.

That's not comparable at all. People make mistakes, they forget; if I asked someone to bring me a coffee and they brought me the beans because they had a brain fart, I might laugh and be OK with it. If they consistently brought me beans and water, I'd think they were being malicious, and if they brought me beans and water, even though they know what a coffee is, and genuinely acted clueless about it, I would be seriously annoyed. If you're going to bring up "maybe they didn't really know what a coffee was": no, that isn't the point.

> As an aside, I never ask anyone to make me coffee unless they are a trained barista, and even they make drinks that aren't what I want on occasion.

Actually, I don't even drink coffee! I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion at all.

>I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion at all.

The example OP provided is about how asking someone to bring you coffee can produce unexpected results. I furthered the point that it can still happen with trained and experienced baristas - people who make coffee for a living.

If someone is being obviously and intentionally malicious by doing a task incorrectly, then yeah, let them go. You'll both likely be happier for it.

> I furthered the point that it can still happen with trained and experienced baristas - people who make coffee for a living.

You've had a trained barista give you a cup full of unground coffee beans when you asked for a cup of coffee? I find that hard to believe.

Did you understand, or even finish reading, the article?

You utterly and completely missed the point. There is no actual human getting fired, or even the threat of someone getting fired. There isn't even a "someone"!

The point is to highlight the incompetence of Siri the virtual assistant, not to imply that someone needs to be fired. It's an analogy[0].

0: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy

We all understand the point being made: this is a ridiculous answer by Siri.

The treatment of a hypothetical human-assistant-that-never-was is really irrelevant.