| > Division very much is the point because they are not humans. I'm not so worried about dividing humans and LLMs as dividing humans from each other. Sure, LLMs are not humans, and that's a valid distinction, but the word "clanker" is used by humans, and there's already a divide between humans who think it's OK to use a slur if it's directed towards a group they don't like (I don't mean you here) and people who don't. > Dogs are not inanimate objects and even legally they carry a lot of rights. I'd think less of someone who was gratuitously swearing at a dog not because they hurt the dog's feelings, but because they were being gratuitously negative. > I'm assuming the line emerges from what society does with a word. It does, and the use of "clanker" I've seen was generally meant as a slur. It's not a neutral word in any context I've seen it in. > You seem to draw a line somewhere that is different from where I would have drawn it. True, but I also think that "clanker" is fairly far towards one end of the spectrum, not really near the middle. |
I can tell you that within the agentic coding community plenty of people are using it as a way to refer to coding agents by their users. That's a pretty neutral use.
> True, but I also think that "clanker" is fairly far towards one end of the spectrum, not really near the middle.
Until I saw the comments on the most recent hackernews discussion on it I would never have made that guess.