In Ben Shneiderman's interview, two things really peaked my interest: the semantics of the discussion, and the accountability and responsibility question. I will focus on the former, but I want to state that I also thought the idea of AI accountability was incredibly interesting and relevant, as it is a complicated, subtle but deeply impactful question. Onto the linguists and semantics itself, I thought it was a really interesting thing to be considered, as words relating to AI have simply lost their meaning, as generally happens when there is buzz around them. Synergize, life coach, empowerment and all other sorts of buzzwords have lost their meaning after being banalized; and the popularization of AI has had the same effect. Computers and algorithms becoming "partners" rather than tools, machines "learning" instead of predicting are all misrepresentations that inflate the role and power of AI. Schneiderman probably has this attention to language both as a result of his humanistic family environment and his work in "risk prevention," as language in that field can be heavily judicialized, an area in which semantics are a very relevant aspect. I already try to pay attention to my choice of words (mainly the technical ones) when I am writing or speaking, but from now on I will even more attention, and really think about what the words that I am using mean colloquially, what they really mean in a rigorous sense, and if they properly reflect the message I am trying to say.