I think that master/slave correctly describes the relationship between constructs, and should remain unchanged. It is adequately separated from any sort of human relationship, and doesn't in any way glorify human slavery; in fact it actively separates the machine relationships from human ones. We can look at the relationships between these constructs, and see how far removed it is from any relationship in modern society.
Correct - it's just one piece of software telling another what to do. But the cancel mob is determined to make it very expensive to resist making changes they demand, so IBM folded like a cheap suit. Maybe it's even worse than that and they made this change on their own, in order to "lead".
If Biden wins it's going to get much worse. But now that more partents are home (either WFH, or laid off) home schooling could become more popular.
The terms have racial undertones which are more pronounced than they ought to be due to the current political environment.
The master/slave term is an accurate metaphor for the technology, and we can infer that no racial discrimination is intended by its usage.
We have to assume people who are performing intelligent work are capable of nuance and discretion.
And for people working on serious problems in science and technology, in order for them to progress effectively, they need to be insulated from silly little identity politics intrusions like this.
>We have to assume people who are performing intelligent work are capable of nuance and discretion
Which is why myself and many others in the industry would not see a problem using different terms. I know I don't need to explain this to you, but we're in a constantly evolving industry subject to rapid change. It's something we're all accustom to so one more minor change, especially one that's inconsequential to the industry as a whole but significant to the people it affects, shouldn't be a point of contention. Our industry has always been focused on the future and part of that innovation is being able to let go of our fleeting past and keep moving forward.
Even if it correctly describes the relationship between constructs, that doesn't necessarily mean it should remain unchanged. And it's not really separated from human relationships. If the human relationship we call master/slave had been called foo/bar, we'd call the machine relationship foo/bar. They're intimately linked concepts.
Personally, the terms neither benefit me nor hurt me, so I just defer to people with strong feelings. If it hurts them, fine call it something else.
This is a bad precedent. We are seeing companies pre-emptively capitulate to social media outrage from spheres completely outside their own domain.
This is not an act from humanist principles. This is just addressing surface level, visible things that are in no way racist or offensive - until a political environment coerces you to believe it is.
Unfortunately, capitulation is good for business.
But in the long-term this will be incredibly damaging to the principles of free speech, open discourse, science, and the advancement of technology.
In what way is it good for tech companies, research institutes, academic institutions to bend to the forceful compliance of mid-20s liberal arts students who have yet to undertake any real responsibility in society, who have yet to enter into any domain of societal consequence?
7 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 23.0 ms ] threadI think that master/slave correctly describes the relationship between constructs, and should remain unchanged. It is adequately separated from any sort of human relationship, and doesn't in any way glorify human slavery; in fact it actively separates the machine relationships from human ones. We can look at the relationships between these constructs, and see how far removed it is from any relationship in modern society.
If Biden wins it's going to get much worse. But now that more partents are home (either WFH, or laid off) home schooling could become more popular.
But it's not the only way to describe it. There are other ways to describe it without using contentious terms.
The master/slave term is an accurate metaphor for the technology, and we can infer that no racial discrimination is intended by its usage.
We have to assume people who are performing intelligent work are capable of nuance and discretion.
And for people working on serious problems in science and technology, in order for them to progress effectively, they need to be insulated from silly little identity politics intrusions like this.
Which is why myself and many others in the industry would not see a problem using different terms. I know I don't need to explain this to you, but we're in a constantly evolving industry subject to rapid change. It's something we're all accustom to so one more minor change, especially one that's inconsequential to the industry as a whole but significant to the people it affects, shouldn't be a point of contention. Our industry has always been focused on the future and part of that innovation is being able to let go of our fleeting past and keep moving forward.
Personally, the terms neither benefit me nor hurt me, so I just defer to people with strong feelings. If it hurts them, fine call it something else.
This is not an act from humanist principles. This is just addressing surface level, visible things that are in no way racist or offensive - until a political environment coerces you to believe it is.
Unfortunately, capitulation is good for business.
But in the long-term this will be incredibly damaging to the principles of free speech, open discourse, science, and the advancement of technology.
In what way is it good for tech companies, research institutes, academic institutions to bend to the forceful compliance of mid-20s liberal arts students who have yet to undertake any real responsibility in society, who have yet to enter into any domain of societal consequence?