[wizzwizz4]

> I wonder if somewhere along the chain there was an automated tool to convert frequently abused mental-health related terms like “insane” into something leas hurtful, or something along those lines?

And yet again, these Lincoln systems mess up. While giving advice to the author can avoid Great Grimsby mistakes, making the replacements automatically is an utterly Scunthorpe decision, with failures as Slough as they are foreseeable.

If the intent is to be unhurtful, it should need to choose a different word to if the intent is to be hurtful! Even our most sophisticated automated systems are Milton Keynes at determining that kind of thing.

[shagie]

As an aside, this is one of the spots where GPT does a really good job of fixing things.

    Reword the following passage.  Change euphemisms to wording that has similar meaning though no negative conotations.  Indicate changed words by putting them in "{{word}}"
    ###
    Standards are supposed to lead
    ...
    Why are such requests made? Often because of arithmetic bugs. And what is a non-null pointer from malloc(0) good for? Absolutely nothing, except shooting yourself in the foot.
    ###

To which it returned:

    Standards are meant to provide the groundwork for a better world by enabling code portability. Real standardization necessitates {{managing}} a variety of compiler and library implementations while maintaining sensible rules. The saga of the realloc story demonstrates that C standardization does not operate in this fashion any longer.

    As C89 was being crafted, there was a {{unconventional}} thought of a "zero-length object": Supporters proposed that a non-null pointer to such an object should be given for requests for zero-byte allocation.

    Why do such requests come about? Frequently due to miscalculations. And what is a non-null pointer from malloc(0) useful for? Nothing, apart from {{setting oneself up for failure}}.

It changed (along with some wording around to make the changes fit):

heading cats -> managing

neurodivergent -> unconventional

shooting yourself in the foot -> setting oneself up for failure

[smsm42]

I guess that's be the way to detect if the text has been written by the AI - it'd be completely devoid of metaphors and cleansed from anything that could possibly offend somebody. I wouldn't ever call it a "good job" but I guess it's useful.

[xigoi]

Excuse me, but I'm still offended by the word “miscalculations”. It implies that calculations can be wrong, which dehumanizes people with dyscalculia.

[smsm42]

File a report to OpenAI, I'm sure they'll teach it to say "calculations that do not exceed certain high standards of accuracy" very soon. That's the beauty of it - you can run the treadmill on computer speed now.

[bee_rider]

“Unconventional” seems like a bad pick to me, too neutral. Clearly the author intends to say something negative about zero-length objects. And of course it is fine dislike things, it is just a matter of not using hurtful language.

[liquidify]

There is no possible way to have style without the potential to bother someone. Just write how you feel. If the readers are so offended, they can stop reading. Life will go on.

[bee_rider]

There are so many less hurtful words, I can’t accept the idea that style requires these particular words. I mean the sentence is clunky with “neurodivergent” anyway, and this unusual use of the word sticks out and is distracting. The style is not improved by this pick.

How about “awful” “asinine” or “shit-tastic” instead?

[wizzwizz4]

There's no way to say "this thing is rubbish" without the potential to bother people who like it. But it's entirely possible to say it without pissing off those who don't speak, or have motor disabilities, or like Justin Bieber.

[peterashford]

So then just use the n-word? Call disabled people the r-word? No. You can have style without being offensive. You dont have to punch at someone to have style.

[bongobingo1]

Sorry, `unconventional` is also offensive.

> Reword the following passage. Change euphemisms to wording that has similar meaning though no negative conotations. Indicate changed words by putting them in "{{word}}"

>

> The couples were of unconventional make up, including male and female pairings, male and male pairings as well as female and female.

>> The couples had non-traditional compositions, with pairings consisting of men and women, men and men, and women and women.

So's male and female apparently.