Robots present - Watch your language

In my last blog I wrote about a letter that was sent to the editor and published but not before some editing took place that nullified the purpose for sending the letter in the first place. It was unfortunate but I understood. 

Almost every letter is edited in some way—to save space, to protect the innocent, to keep the letters civilized. I’ve come to accept this and actually expect it. It allows me to say what I mean, knowing that the editor will protect me. But some times I just don’t get it. 

There was an article recently, “Robots going into labor” by Cecelia Kang of the Washington Post about robots playing an even bigger role in the workplace. There were robots, the article said, that actually managed other robots—and they were increasing in number every day.

This was my take on the subject, which I sent to the editor: 

This is a wonderful story that can only make us all feel better about the future. Apparently that future will be one where American companies will consist of a lot of robots working their ash cans off and one CEO depositing the profits with a check he makes out to himself. But wait, don't we already have machines that can sign documents? How ironic and yet at the same time, refreshing. A CEO in the unemployment lines. 

And this is what the editor published under the title,  

Their pay? A can of oil.

This is a wonderful story that can only make us all feel better about the future. Apparently that future will be one where American companies will consist of a lot of robots working very hard and one CEO depositing the profits with a check he makes out to himself. Butwait, don't we already have machines that can sign documents? How refreshing: a CEO in the unemployment lines.

The edit at the end was okay because it didn’t change the story. But changing “a lot of robots working their ash cans off” to “a lot of robots working very hard” is a little discomforting. Obviously I was going for the cheap laugh intending “working their ash cans off,” as a substitute for the more familiar “working their butts off” while associating robots in some way with the tin man, or to go one step further with a metal trash can.

Okay, I was trying to insult the robot in any childish way I could and yes, I know that is stupid because even though a robot can do a lot of things they can’t really be insulted—although the original article states that they can be designed to appear to exhibit real emotions like looking sad, confused and I suppose being insulted.

Anyway, I question where we have come as a society. Robots replacing workers is bad enough but not being able to joke them is going to take all the fun out of going to work.