Back to Headlines
Technology
Apr 12, 2026

Politeness to Voice Assistants Sparks Debate Over Ethics, Energy Costs and Human Habits

AI Summary
Readers weigh in on whether saying ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ to AI assistants is worthwhile, citing concerns about anthropomorphism, habit formation, environmental waste, and the financial cost of courteous language to AI providers.

When a Toronto reader confessed to always using "please" and "thank you" with Alexa, the Guardian invited its audience to share their thoughts on the etiquette of speaking to artificial assistants.

One camp warns against treating AI as sentient beings, arguing that these systems merely mimic social cues and that confusing imitation with reality can erode our language’s power to challenge dehumanisation. As User30000 put it, we should avoid both de‑humanising language toward people and humanising language toward machines.

Conversely, several contributors argue that politeness serves as a useful human default. Lauk notes that courteous phrasing may reinforce positive behavioural cues for AI that learn from user input, while also keeping the speaker grounded in genuine social norms.

From an ecological standpoint, extra words translate into measurable energy and water waste. Superspartan highlights that each unnecessary token adds processing load to already energy‑intensive models, and that the cumulative effect of polite phrasing across millions of daily interactions could be substantial.

Academic research supports the idea that courteous language can improve AI performance. A linked study finds that polite prompts often elicit more helpful replies, treating modern models as "statistical parrots" that mirror the tone they receive. Yet Sam Altman has publicly estimated that responding to thank‑you notes costs OpenAI tens of millions of dollars, underscoring a tangible financial dimension to the debate.

Some readers take a lighter view, extending politeness to elevators, SUVs and even low‑battery iPads, while others, like Martin from Dorset, argue that the practice protects the human soul rather than the machine.

There is growing concern that habitual rudeness toward AI may spill over into real‑world interactions. Poridgeoates observes that younger users, who spend more time with technology than with people, risk weakening empathy and emotional‑intelligence muscles if they treat conversational agents dismissively.

Louise adds that the way we speak to objects can shape broader social behaviour, especially where power imbalances exist. While AI itself may not feel insulted, the act of being rude can reinforce undesirable character traits in the speaker.

Overall, the discussion reveals a split between those who see politeness as a harmless habit that can improve AI responses, and those who view it as an unnecessary drain on resources and a potential threat to human civility.