Beyond Users: Rethinking How We Refer to People in the Age of AI

In the 1982 sci-fi classic Tron, the digital world is divided into two distinct classes: “Programs” that exist within the computer system and “Users” who interact with it from the outside. This clean division created a mythology where Users were revered as almost god-like figures by the Programs who served them. Fast forward to today, and the lexicon established by Tron might soon need a revision, as the lines between who’s using whom are becoming increasingly blurred.

Admittedly, I’ve never been one to obsess over terminology or linguistic choices in technology discussions. Words are just words, right? But as AI increasingly reshapes our world – affecting everything from creative work to job security – I’m beginning to think these semantic distinctions carry more weight than I once gave them credit for. Perhaps what we call each other, and what we call our digital companions, shapes our relationships with them in ways we haven’t fully recognized.

 The Call to Retire “User”

In an article from last year’s MIT Technology Review titled “It’s time to retire the term ‘user‘,” Taylor Majewski argues that the proliferation of AI technologies necessitates a new vocabulary for describing the relationship between people and technology. The word “user,” which has been a staple in tech vocabulary since the 1950s, may no longer accurately reflect the complex relationships we have with our digital tools.

Majewski traces the history of the term back to the mainframe computer era when computers were massive, expensive machines operated by trained employees who were called “users.” The term persisted through the personal computing revolution of the 1970s and became firmly entrenched in the technological lexicon with terms like “user account,” “user ID,” and “user profile” proliferating in the 1990s.

Don Norman, who joined Apple in the early 1990s with the title “user experience architect,” played a significant role in popularizing the term. However, Norman himself has been advocating for its replacement since at least 2008. In an article titled “Words Matter. Talk About People: Not Customers, Not Consumers, Not Users,” Norman argued that “user” is a dehumanizing term that creates distance between designers and the people they’re designing for.

“Psychologists depersonalize the people they study by calling them ‘subjects.’ We depersonalize the people we study by calling them ‘users.’ Both terms are derogatory. They take us away from our primary mission: to help people.”

 The Problem with “User”

The term “user” carries several problematic implications:

1.  Dehumanization: It reduces people to a functional role rather than acknowledging their full humanity.

2.  System-Centric Thinking: As Norman pointed out, early technologists thought of users as “simply another component” in a system, not as real people with complex needs and emotions.

3.  Growth-Obsessed Culture: The vagueness of “user” enabled tech’s “growth at all costs” mentality, where companies focused on user numbers rather than on creating genuine value.

4.  Addiction Connotations: The term “user” also carries the baggage of addiction terminology, where a “user” is someone dependent on a substance. (Unfortunately, given the social media dopamine loop this may still be applicable.)

Alternative Terminology

Several alternatives have been proposed over the years:

1.  People/Humans: Norman’s straightforward recommendation is to simply call users what they are—people or humans.

2.  Interactor: In 2011, Georgia Tech professor Janet Murray suggested “interactor” to better capture the creative and participatory nature of digital engagement.

3. Customers: In 2012, Jack Dorsey announced that Square would replace “user” with “customer” and the more specific terms “buyers” and “sellers.” Dorsey argued that “customer” sets “a high bar on the level of service we must provide, or risk losing their attention or business.”

4. Context-Specific Terms: Majewski suggests using more precise terms based on the specific relationship, such as “patients” in healthcare, “students” in educational tech, or “readers” for media companies. In gaming, people are typically called “players,” acknowledging their active participation.

Many companies have attempted to move away from “user-centric” language, with Facebook notably defaulting to “people” around 2014. However, the term remains deeply embedded in tech culture, as evidenced by Instagram chief Adam Mosseri’s casual interchange of “people” and “users” in his public communications.

 AI Changes the Equation

What makes this conversation particularly relevant today is the rise of AI. As Majewski points out, generative AI has been popularized as a “conversational buddy,” with AI entities being assigned humanizing titles like “copilot,” “assistant,” and “collaborator” to convey partnership rather than automation.

Karina Nguyen, a researcher at the AI startup Anthropic, recently wrote about considering “language models as their primary users” alongside “human users.” This raises an interesting question: If AI systems are now being treated as partners rather than tools, and are themselves being called “users,” what term should we use for the humans in the equation?

The irony is striking. While humans have been reduced to “users” for decades, AI tools are being granted more dignified, collaborative labels. Does this linguistic flip hint at a potential power shift in the relationship between humans and technology?

 Looking Forward

Words matter; words mean things – the words we choose matter more than ever. Norman’s advice remains relevant: “We change the world, and the world comes back and changes us. So we better be careful how we change the world.”

Perhaps the most thoughtful approach is to adopt more specific, context-appropriate terminology that acknowledges the full humanity of the people engaging with technology, while also recognizing the increasingly complex and collaborative nature of human-AI interactions.

Returning to Tron, the film’s mythology of “Users” and “Programs” seems both outdated (for me – nostalgic) and strangely prophetic. Outdated because the clean division between the two categories is dissolving as AI becomes more sophisticated and integrated into our lives. Prophetic because the film anticipated a world where the relationship between humans and digital entities would be central to our technological future.

In Tron: Legacy, the sequel released 28 years after the original, we see Programs that have evolved to resemble Users in complexity and autonomy, and a User who enters the digital world to become part of it. Perhaps this blurring of boundaries is the true prophecy of Tron—not that Users would always remain godlike entities separate from their Programs, but that the distinction between the two would eventually become the central question of our digital age.

As AI continues to evolve, perhaps we need to retire not just the term “user,” but the entire paradigm that puts technology and humans in separate, hierarchical categories. The future may belong not to Users or Programs, but to a new kind of partnership that we’ve yet to fully name or understand.

 The CinchOps Difference

At CinchOps, we’ve long recognized what the tech industry is only beginning to understand: the people who engage with our services are much more than just “users.” This terminology discussion resonates deeply with our company values and approach to business relationships.

From day one, the CinchOps culture was built around the understanding that the individuals and organizations we work with are partners in a collaborative journey, not passive consumers of our services. While many technology companies still rely on the outdated language of “users” and “user experiences,” CinchOps has intentionally cultivated a vocabulary that reflects genuine human connection and mutual respect.

This perspective shapes everything we do:

We don’t have “user onboarding” – we have partnership initiation, where we learn about each other’s needs and establish shared goals
We don’t track “user metrics” – we measure relationship health and collaborative success
We don’t have “user support” – we provide partner assistance that acknowledges the expertise on both sides

After all, we’re not in the business of creating “users” – we’re in the business of building partnerships that drives continuing growth and success.

Discover more about our enterprise-grade and business enabling services on our IT Services page. Contact us today to meet, chat and discover how we can partner together to enable your business.