4 ms·

Why is that problematic?

jml7c5 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Terminology_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Term...
tomp 8y ago
Because people cannot separate the abstract concept of slavery to the actual historical happening. Personally, I want to be a master to my mechanical slaves (tools, dishwashers, computers, robots) and can't wait for a future where machine-slavery is so pervasive that no humans need to work anymore.
- Dirlewanger 8y ago
  Yup, it's censorship for the sake of censorship. We've had zero problems with master/slave terminology for decades because everyone dealing with it was cognizant enough to realize we weren't talking about human bondage. Then people who are incapable of compartmentalizing word connotations came in and declared their use "problematic" and demand everyone conform to their worldview and to waste time changing code comments, lest you want to be called racist/sexist/fascist/anti-Semite/Trump supporter/etc (mind you, all over words). At the end of the day, nothing changes except the vocal minority's frivolous complaining temporarily ceases. Now watch me be angrily downvoted for no other reason than someone got upset and offended.
  - minikites 8y ago
    There was a similar discussion a while back and I can't find the exact comment, but the commenter I'm paraphrasing posed this example: What if database rows marked for deletion were marked with a "Jew" flag and to process the deleted rows you ran a "holocaust' function? Would you be able to compartmentalize those words? Would you insist that people shouldn't be offended? If you think these situations are different, why?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - tomp 8y ago
      It's bad to "exterminate" Jews but not bad to exterminate termites (well, at least in the human value system). The "final solution" to the Jewish question is bad, but the final solution to an exam math problem is good. Same words can mean different things in different contexts. "Master" means someone who rules, gives orders, has people working for him. "Slave" is someone or something that follows master's orders without capacity to resist or deviate from that order (well, that's the idea... we'll see how AI turns out).
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - dang 8y ago
      Please don't take an HN thread further into pointless flamewar. This is a classic of that hellish genre.
  - rhcom2 8y ago
    "We've had zero problems with master/slave terminology for decades because everyone dealing with it was cognizant enough to realize we weren't talking about human bondage." That's a pretty big assumption. Maybe people did have a problem but felt uncomfortable voicing that opinion or maybe having an industry overwhelming white no one had the experience necessary to notice that it might be problematic. That it's "censorship for the sake of censorship" is just the most bad faith assumption you could make. Word choices change with the culture, it's a fact of life.
  - tedivm 8y ago
    I'm downvoting you not because I'm upset and offended, but because you're breaking the rules of this site with this post. One of the rules here is that you must assume "good faith" in conversation with people, but instead you're accusing people of wanting "censorship for the sake of censorship". While you may not agree with the reasons people advocate for this change, they are presenting reasons and there is no evidence that those reasons are made up simply to mask a desire to censor people.
- crazygringo 8y ago
  Why on earth would you choose to use the term mechanical slave for your dishwasher except to be deliberatively provocative? The term "machine" is perfectly fine. You're actually choosing to be offensive for the sake of being offensive. Please stop.
  - tomp 8y ago
    I prefer the term "slave" because it implies (hopefully) no free will (and hence no capacity to disobey). At least I hope that's how AI turns out. You're finding offense for the sake of finding offense and being censorious for the sake of being censorious. Please stop.
    - tedivm 8y ago
      You're breaking a rule of this site- you should assume good faith when talking to other people on here. There is no evidence that anyone wants to be "censorious for the sake of being censorious"- even if you don't agree with the reasoning behind this discussion it doesn't change the fact that people have put forward reasons.
      - dang 8y ago
        Yes, but I'd say the GP comment broke that same rule as well.
- pygy_ 8y ago
  I'm not rooting for a future where human labor is obsolete. Why would the machines continue to feed us if we're dead weight to the economy?
  - tomp 8y ago
    I am. Why do the washing machines keep washing pensioners' clothes, if they're dead weight to the economy? Because we (the intelligent / sentient / human civilisation) decided so.
    - pygy_ 8y ago
      Institutionalized care for the weaker members of society actually makes productive members more productive. Likewise for social security and state-run unemployment insurances. AI is coming in the form of industry automatization, in a very competitive, capitalist framework. Agriculture and resource extraction is also being automated. Capital is literally growing a brain, and once it doesn't need us it will stop feeding us, and we'll be powerless against it because we are so dependent on it. Think of a spider shedding its dead skin after molting.
      - tomp 8y ago
        There's a number of flaws in your argument. If automation will make agriculture more competitive, then food will get cheaper. Governments will be able to subsidise it. Capital needs consumers to make a profit. Politics will solve any kind of food crisis. Otherwise there will be a revolution.
        pygy_ 8y ago
        > Capital needs consumers to make a profit. Fundamentally, demand is survival instinct, which develops under Darwinian pressure. B2B is already growing faster than B2C. Wages are globally stagnating while capital keeps on growing. The industry as a self-maximizer can be its own consumer. > Governments will be able to subsidise it. [...] Otherwise there will be a revolution. This assumes that humans will still have some kind of power. Being somewhat competitive in the job market is the only power most people have today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Terminology_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Term...

tomp 8y ago

Because people cannot separate the abstract concept of slavery to the actual historical happening. Personally, I want to be a master to my mechanical slaves (tools, dishwashers, computers, robots) and can't wait for a future where machine-slavery is so pervasive that no humans need to work anymore.

Dirlewanger 8y ago
Yup, it's censorship for the sake of censorship. We've had zero problems with master/slave terminology for decades because everyone dealing with it was cognizant enough to realize we weren't talking about human bondage. Then people who are incapable of compartmentalizing word connotations came in and declared their use "problematic" and demand everyone conform to their worldview and to waste time changing code comments, lest you want to be called racist/sexist/fascist/anti-Semite/Trump supporter/etc (mind you, all over words). At the end of the day, nothing changes except the vocal minority's frivolous complaining temporarily ceases. Now watch me be angrily downvoted for no other reason than someone got upset and offended.
- minikites 8y ago
  There was a similar discussion a while back and I can't find the exact comment, but the commenter I'm paraphrasing posed this example: What if database rows marked for deletion were marked with a "Jew" flag and to process the deleted rows you ran a "holocaust' function? Would you be able to compartmentalize those words? Would you insist that people shouldn't be offended? If you think these situations are different, why?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomp 8y ago
    It's bad to "exterminate" Jews but not bad to exterminate termites (well, at least in the human value system). The "final solution" to the Jewish question is bad, but the final solution to an exam math problem is good. Same words can mean different things in different contexts. "Master" means someone who rules, gives orders, has people working for him. "Slave" is someone or something that follows master's orders without capacity to resist or deviate from that order (well, that's the idea... we'll see how AI turns out).
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - dang 8y ago
    Please don't take an HN thread further into pointless flamewar. This is a classic of that hellish genre.
- rhcom2 8y ago
  "We've had zero problems with master/slave terminology for decades because everyone dealing with it was cognizant enough to realize we weren't talking about human bondage." That's a pretty big assumption. Maybe people did have a problem but felt uncomfortable voicing that opinion or maybe having an industry overwhelming white no one had the experience necessary to notice that it might be problematic. That it's "censorship for the sake of censorship" is just the most bad faith assumption you could make. Word choices change with the culture, it's a fact of life.
- tedivm 8y ago
  I'm downvoting you not because I'm upset and offended, but because you're breaking the rules of this site with this post. One of the rules here is that you must assume "good faith" in conversation with people, but instead you're accusing people of wanting "censorship for the sake of censorship". While you may not agree with the reasons people advocate for this change, they are presenting reasons and there is no evidence that those reasons are made up simply to mask a desire to censor people.
crazygringo 8y ago
Why on earth would you choose to use the term mechanical slave for your dishwasher except to be deliberatively provocative? The term "machine" is perfectly fine. You're actually choosing to be offensive for the sake of being offensive. Please stop.
- tomp 8y ago
  I prefer the term "slave" because it implies (hopefully) no free will (and hence no capacity to disobey). At least I hope that's how AI turns out. You're finding offense for the sake of finding offense and being censorious for the sake of being censorious. Please stop.
  - tedivm 8y ago
    You're breaking a rule of this site- you should assume good faith when talking to other people on here. There is no evidence that anyone wants to be "censorious for the sake of being censorious"- even if you don't agree with the reasoning behind this discussion it doesn't change the fact that people have put forward reasons.
    - dang 8y ago
      Yes, but I'd say the GP comment broke that same rule as well.
pygy_ 8y ago
I'm not rooting for a future where human labor is obsolete. Why would the machines continue to feed us if we're dead weight to the economy?
- tomp 8y ago
  I am. Why do the washing machines keep washing pensioners' clothes, if they're dead weight to the economy? Because we (the intelligent / sentient / human civilisation) decided so.
  - pygy_ 8y ago
    Institutionalized care for the weaker members of society actually makes productive members more productive. Likewise for social security and state-run unemployment insurances. AI is coming in the form of industry automatization, in a very competitive, capitalist framework. Agriculture and resource extraction is also being automated. Capital is literally growing a brain, and once it doesn't need us it will stop feeding us, and we'll be powerless against it because we are so dependent on it. Think of a spider shedding its dead skin after molting.
    - tomp 8y ago
      There's a number of flaws in your argument. If automation will make agriculture more competitive, then food will get cheaper. Governments will be able to subsidise it. Capital needs consumers to make a profit. Politics will solve any kind of food crisis. Otherwise there will be a revolution.
      - pygy_ 8y ago
        > Capital needs consumers to make a profit. Fundamentally, demand is survival instinct, which develops under Darwinian pressure. B2B is already growing faster than B2C. Wages are globally stagnating while capital keeps on growing. The industry as a self-maximizer can be its own consumer. > Governments will be able to subsidise it. [...] Otherwise there will be a revolution. This assumes that humans will still have some kind of power. Being somewhat competitive in the job market is the only power most people have today.