I actually thought every single recommendation was good... Even the "inclusivity" one, despite the terrible category naming scheme, had a good suggestion.
My issue is when it corrects "style", which this one didn't based on the examples, though I imagine it would. Suggestions like "go wild" instead of "go bananas" are borderline. Without understanding the context, such a suggestion might be worthless and just becomes clutter. It bugs me when I have the right word/sentence structure and it suggests to me something worse. In reality, instead of popping up as "underlining the sentence", it should be its own separate function similar to specifically running a thesaurus on everything.
If you've seen the "inclusivity" or "sensitive geopolitical references" functions in action, on your own work, then trust me, they're not good...
As I've mentioned before, I have an organisational account where you can't disable these "corrections". It gets incredibly annoying, because of course, it doesn't understand context.
Other discussion of this has already mentioned how it wants you to use "assigned male at birth" or similar, instead of how you would normally refer to biological sex, so I assure you, this is not as... Benevolent as your impression seems to be, from the video...
I agree on the second paragraph. That's the point - you are seeing, with this example, but a small idea of just how bad this is, in practice...
Imagine that, but much more intrusive, wherein references to "fat people", "retardation", "Taiwan is a country" or "that group of men" are explicitly no longer sanctioned by the software you are using, and that information is then conveyed to your workplace...
This really should not be acceptable, in a supposedly (relatively) "free" society.
I actually thought every single recommendation was good... Even the "inclusivity" one, despite the terrible category naming scheme, had a good suggestion.
My issue is when it corrects "style", which this one didn't based on the examples, though I imagine it would. Suggestions like "go wild" instead of "go bananas" are borderline. Without understanding the context, such a suggestion might be worthless and just becomes clutter. It bugs me when I have the right word/sentence structure and it suggests to me something worse. In reality, instead of popping up as "underlining the sentence", it should be its own separate function similar to specifically running a thesaurus on everything.
If you've seen the "inclusivity" or "sensitive geopolitical references" functions in action, on your own work, then trust me, they're not good...
As I've mentioned before, I have an organisational account where you can't disable these "corrections". It gets incredibly annoying, because of course, it doesn't understand context.
Other discussion of this has already mentioned how it wants you to use "assigned male at birth" or similar, instead of how you would normally refer to biological sex, so I assure you, this is not as... Benevolent as your impression seems to be, from the video...
I agree on the second paragraph. That's the point - you are seeing, with this example, but a small idea of just how bad this is, in practice...
Imagine that, but much more intrusive, wherein references to "fat people", "retardation", "Taiwan is a country" or "that group of men" are explicitly no longer sanctioned by the software you are using, and that information is then conveyed to your workplace...
This really should not be acceptable, in a supposedly (relatively) "free" society.