It just seems incredibly odd for there to be so many lines in a book about gender insisting that there is no way to refer to someone (in the English language, at least) without implying gender. She even mentions the possibility of using „it“ at one point!
I’m liking the book otherwise, but every time the narrators ponder about pronouns without even considering „they“ I have to ask myself if there is any point in ignoring it or if she genuinely just forgot. I don’t think it’s possible for her to have not known about it considering how well-read she was and how long it’s been in use.
So you got AI to hallucinate a summary of a 1975 paper.
To talk about a book published in 1969.
Weird that the AI didn’t summarize what Le Guin herself said on the topic.
It’s almost as if reaching for AI isn’t the smartest idea.
I think you saw me say “AI” and replied too quickly. I didn’t cite Le Guin. I used AI as a search tool to highlight one example of a paper discussing how the neutral “they” was commonplace during the time. I know it’s just search results, which is why I disclaimed it was as such. Then I included the paper’s abstract, which stands on its own enough to make the point that talking about a hypothetical era without the neutral “they” is not applicable to 1969.
this is lemmy dude.
AI is evil and bad, no matter it’s use or context.
almost like your choice of pronouns for a singular person in written language… is also now problematic and offensive to whomever, and le guin is clearly was anti-trans or something for not knowing that in 2026 kids would be reading her 1969 novel and getting bent out of shape about her pronoun use not reflecting their own contemporary beliefs about it.