> Why Not Agent?
I agree, "agent" gives them agency. "Clanker" just sounds like "trashheap" to me, though, a clearly pejorative term. You could go with "harness", "AI", "LLM", "bot", or any of a host of neutral words. No need to reach for something that sounds ugly.
> The Machine Has No Feelings
Yes, you can't offend a machine, but divisive rhetoric is meant to do just that: Divide. I don't want to see people split into "clanker-lovers" and "clanker-haters". Divisive language just sounds ugly to me because it aims to divide.
As a friend put it, if someone were talking to a dog, calmly calling it various pejorative names, even if the dog's feelings weren't hurt, I'd still think less of the person for doing that.
> Racism Is About Humans
Yes, and there's plenty of scope for humans to divide themselves in identity-politics camps based on their position towards AI. More identity politics isn't something I want to see, so I prefer to use neutral words so the discussion gets elevated, when possible.
> AI Is Unpopular
Yes, and people are right to not like AI, for various reasons. It's one thing to not like something, and a completely different thing to call it a word that's meant to be a put-down that shuts down thought.
> The Word Is Getting Polluted
Well, no, not really. You can't use a word that sounds like a slur, and usually is meant to be a slur and complain that it's getting polluted. If anything, you're the minority user here, and the "polluted" meaning was the intended one.
> This is why giving these systems softer, more human language worries me.
Then don't! There are degrees between "the agent decided" and "clanker", even though I will point out here that we were fine saying "the autopilot leveled the plane" or "the bank's KYC software deemed the user suspicious".
pmdulaney•28m ago